Case 3311033/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stephen Pakes v Instant Landscapes Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3311033/2024
- Decision date
- 19 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stephen Pakes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing. Before the hearing, he emailed the tribunal saying that he could not attend and no longer wished to pursue his unfair dismissal claim. After the tribunal asked whether he also withdrew the breach of contract and unauthorised deduction of wages claims, he confirmed that he did not object to the tribunal proceeding in his absence.
The tribunal proceeded in the claimant's absence, noting that the hearing date had been known for some time. The respondent's managing director gave sworn evidence that the claimant resigned, was not entitled to notice pay, and that deductions were made in accordance with contractual training agreements. The claimant was not present to challenge that account, and the tribunal found the facts in accordance with the respondent's witness statement.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The breach of contract and unauthorised deduction of wages claims were dismissed, with the tribunal recording that no monies were due to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim concerned notice pay and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to the claim as unauthorised deduction of wages and dismisses it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.