Case 1400559/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Carter v Shire Oak Energy Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400559/2023
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Carter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 2 February 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Rayner Date proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to determine the claim on the papers.
The tribunal found that the claimant had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages because wages were not paid from June 2022 until December 2022. It ordered the respondent to pay £111,186.77 gross for those unpaid wages. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been wrongfully dismissed and was entitled to 26 weeks' notice pay, assessed at £38,460.00 net.
The judgment then stated that all other claims were dismissed. On the figures recorded in the judgment, the total payable was £149,646.77.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages because wages were not paid from June 2022 until December 2022. The judgment records the award as £111,186.77 gross. | Upheld | — | £111,187 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had been wrongfully dismissed and was entitled to notice pay. The judgment records 26 weeks' notice pay at £38,460.00 net. | Upheld | — | £38,460 |
| Unfair dismissal | This claim is not separately reasoned in the judgment text but is captured by the statement that all other claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £149,647
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.