Case 2504281/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S P Spokes v Beaver Management Services Limited [R1] Charles Contract Services Limited [R2] Barrier Limited [R3] — 2020
- Case reference
- 2504281/2019
- Decision date
- 23 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Non-legal
- Panel members
- Mrs C Hunter, Mrs S Mee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S P Spokes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Newcastle by video link on 21, 22 and 23 October 2020 before Employment Judge S Shore with two non-legal members. The claimant appeared in person. The respondents were represented. The tribunal recorded that it gave judgment orally and that the written record followed from that oral judgment.
The tribunal held that there was no contract between the claimant and the first respondent that qualified him as a worker or employee of that company, and no contract between the claimant and the second respondent that qualified him as a worker or employee of that company. On that basis, his claims of automatic unfair dismissal and/or detriment for making a protected disclosure against those respondents failed.
As to the third respondent, the tribunal held that there was no contract of employment between the claimant and that respondent that qualified him as an employee, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal did find that the claimant was a worker of the third respondent, but it further found that he did not make a protected disclosure to it on 18 November 2019. His detriment claim therefore also failed. All claims were dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found there was no contract between the claimant and the first respondent that qualified him as a worker or employee of that company, and no contract between the claimant and the second respondent that qualified him as a worker or employee of that company. It also found there was no contract of employment between the claimant and the third respondent that qualified him as an employee. The claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claims based on protected disclosure therefore failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found the claimant was a worker of the third respondent, but that he did not make a protected disclosure to it on 18 November 2019, so his detriment claim for having made such a disclosure failed. As to the first and second respondents, the tribunal found no contract qualifying him as a worker or employee, so any related protected disclosure detriment claims also failed. | 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.