Case 2502425/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gillespie v Supply Care Solutions Limited and 2 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 2502425/2019
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicol Representation
- Venue
- North Shields
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr S Gillespie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 24 February 2020 before Employment Judge Nicol. The claimant appeared in person. The first and second respondents were represented by Ms J Moore, and the third respondent was represented by Ms J Mace.
By agreement with the parties, the tribunal found that the first respondent was not in fact a limited company but a trading name of the second respondent, so it was not a legal entity and the complaints against it were dismissed. It also found, again by agreement, that the second respondent was not the claimant's employer at the relevant times, so the complaints against it were dismissed.
The tribunal further found, by agreement, that the third respondent was the claimant's employer under a contract of employment. However, it found that the claimant did not suffer unauthorised deductions from his wages in respect of wages and/or expenses, and the complaint against the third respondent was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were issued unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The first respondent was treated as a trading name of the second and not a legal entity, so the complaints against it were dismissed. The second respondent was not the claimant's employer at the relevant times, so the complaints against it were dismissed. The third respondent was the claimant's employer, but the tribunal found that he did not suffer unauthorised deductions from wages and/or expenses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.