Case 2204157/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Micah Crook v Stakester Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204157/2023
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Micah Crook
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The respondent failed to respond to the claim, and Employment Judge Goodman determined the case without a hearing on the basis of the ET1 and the documents supplied by the claimant.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages for January and 1-15 February 2023, in the sum of £4,618.02. It also found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay, assessed at £3,159.70.
In addition, the tribunal found a breach of contract because the respondent did not pay employer pension contributions of £287.59 to the claimant's pension fund. The respondent was ordered to pay £8,065.31 in total and to account to HMRC for any tax and NI due on the awards for unpaid wages and pay in lieu of notice. The hearing listed for 3 July 2023 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay wages for January and 1-15 February 2023. | Upheld | — | £4,618 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay, assessed at one month at £729.16 per week. | Upheld | — | £3,160 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract in the respondent's failure to pay employer pension contributions to the claimant's pension fund. | Upheld | — | £288 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,065
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.