Case 1403990/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Toby Gostling v Battledown Contractors Ltd. — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403990/2021
- Decision date
- 31 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Le Grys
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Toby Gostling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found three claims well-founded: unauthorised deduction from wages, accrued but unpaid holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars of employment. It ordered Battledown Contractors Ltd to pay Mr Toby Gostling £5,553.50 net on the wages claim, £252 gross for holiday pay, and £2,284 as compensation for the written-particulars claim.
The written record is brief and does not set out detailed reasons beyond recording those findings and the sums awarded. It records that the hearing took place by CVP at Exeter on 17 August 2022 before Employment Judge Le Grys, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by a litigation consultant.
The bottom-line amount ordered by the tribunal was £8,089.50. No separate basic award, compensatory award, injury to feelings award, or interest is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unauthorised deduction from wages claim well-founded and ordered payment of £5,553.50 net. | Upheld | — | £5,554 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for accrued but unpaid holiday well founded and ordered payment of £252 gross. | Upheld | — | £252 |
| Other | The tribunal found the claim that the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment well founded and ordered compensation of £2,284. The short judgment does not state the statutory basis for the award. | Upheld | — | £2,284 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,090
- 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.