Case 2224654/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A S Stoica v Frontline Construction Recruitment Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2224654/2024
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Loraine REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A S Stoica
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the tribunal dismissed all claims against the second respondent. It found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered the first respondent to pay the claimant £14.52, being the gross sum deducted. The claimant was responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that sum.
The holiday pay complaint was dismissed. The written itemised pay statements complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The remaining complaints, described in the judgment as stress, robbery, stealing, and violation of privacy GDPR Act 96 Sect 41, were also dismissed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found well-founded. The first respondent was ordered to pay £14.52, being the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £15 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim for written itemised pay statements was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claims for stress, robbery, stealing, and violation of privacy GDPR Act 96 Sect 41 were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15
- 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.