Case 1403045/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Staplin v Daniel Ko — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403045/2022
- Decision date
- 30 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horder Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton ET via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Staplin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Staplin, appeared in person at Southampton Employment Tribunal. The respondent, Daniel Ko, did not attend. The tribunal noted that the respondent had been given notice under Rule 21 that judgment might be entered and had also been given notice of the hearing to consider remedy.
The claimant sought only a declaration under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to itemised pay statements. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements during the claimant's employment between 14 February 2022 and 29 July 2022.
On that basis, the tribunal made a declaration under section 12(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was recorded, and no other claim outcome was set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant sought solely a declaration under section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 that itemised pay statements had not been provided. The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements during the employment period 14 February 2022 to 29 July 2022 and made a declaration under section 12(3) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.12(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.