Case 1403220/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Stokes v Greenoak Building Services Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403220/2021
- Decision date
- 15 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Stokes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Stokes, succeeded in his unlawful deduction from wages claim against Greenoak Building Services Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation). The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £5,570.31 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted.
The judgment also records that the claimant was not provided with a statement of terms. However, the tribunal found exceptional circumstances which would make it unjust or inequitable to make any award under s.38 of the Employment Rights Act 2002, and no award was made on that issue.
The respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The decision was heard at Exeter by video hearing on 8 September 2022, and the written record was sent to the parties on 15 September 2022. The judgment states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £5,570.31 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted. | Upheld | — | £5,570 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the claimant was not provided with a statement of terms, but held that exceptional circumstances made it unjust or inequitable to make any award under s.38 of the Employment Rights Act 2002, so no award was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,570
- across all upheld claims
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.