Case 3201561/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Stocker v Phelan Construction Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201561/2020
- Decision date
- 5 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Knight Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Stocker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Stocker brought claims including redundancy payment, holiday pay, unfair dismissal, and claims arising from non-payment of notice pay. The tribunal recorded that the redundancy payment and holiday pay claims were dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal further found that the respondent did not unfairly dismiss the claimant. It also found that the respondent was in breach of contract and had made an unauthorised deduction of wages by failing to pay notice pay.
The judgment ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £651. The award is stated as a single figure and is not broken down between the breach of contract and unlawful deduction findings.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the redundancy payment claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent did not unfairly dismiss the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to pay notice pay; the monetary award was not split between this claim and the unlawful deduction claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal also found an unauthorised deduction of wages because notice pay was not paid; the monetary award was not split between this claim and the breach of contract claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £651
- 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.