Equity & Ors v Talent Systems Europe Limited (trading as Spotlight)

The statutory definition of an employment agency requires a business to provide services for the purpose of finding persons employment or supplying employers with persons for employment. A directory or marketing platform does not fall within that definition merely because its users may obtain work through it. A platform which hosts user-created profiles, leaves contact and negotiations to performers and hirers, and does not act as a middleman is not thereby providing a work-finding service. The associated fee restrictions and access rights in the Conduct Regulations therefore do not apply.

Equity and eight performer subscribers brought Part 8 proceedings seeking declarations that Spotlight, a subscription-based digital directory operated by Talent Systems Europe Limited, was an employment agency under section 13(2) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973. They also sought declarations concerning permissible subscription fees, work-finding services and access to the platform under the Conduct Regulations.

Spotlight contended that it provided a marketing and promotional directory rather than an employment agency service. The central issue was whether hosting performer profiles, search functionality, casting notices and related features constituted services provided for the purpose of finding employment.

1. Claim dismissed. Spotlight was not an employment agency within section 13(2) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973.
2. The statutory language required the service’s purpose to be finding persons employment or supplying employers with persons for employment. Spotlight’s purpose was to host a directory which performers used to market themselves. Employment might result, but that was several steps removed from the purpose of the service.
3. The court applied a purposive approach to the statutory text, having regard to legislative purpose, consequences and common sense. The wording was nevertheless clear and unambiguous. The rule in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 therefore did not permit reliance on the parliamentary debate, although the debate provided context.
4. Spotlight did not vet or improve profiles, make recommendations, pass profiles on, manage payments or negotiate employment terms. Its search function improved the directory’s functionality but did not alter its purpose. The platform was not acting as a middleman.
5. R (Simply Learning Tuition Agency Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2021] ICR 79 was distinguished. It concerned whether self-employed tutors could be persons for employment; the intermediary’s role was not disputed or analysed. The court accepted its general observation concerning businesses holding themselves out as middlemen.
6. Because Spotlight was not an agency, the questions under regulations 26(5)(b)(i) and (ii), and regulation 13(5), did not require determination.