Ben Stokes did not believe he breached the team curfew that made him the subject of an investigation while his England team were being thrashed by New Zealand at the Oval.Daily Mail Sport understands that Stokes, 35, thought any restrictions on players’ activities were lifted once a Test match was over, and this was at the heart of his defence when probed by the Cricket Regulator on Thursday.England captain Stokes will return next week at Trent Bridge alongside Gus Atkinson, the other player present in the early hours of June 8 when post-match celebrations following the 115-run win over the New Zealanders at Lord’s culminated in an unsavoury incident in the VIP area of the Rex Rooms nightclub in Chelsea.A member of the England team’s security personnel was struck by Saracens academy player Totoa Auvaa, aiming a punch at Atkinson, following a disagreement over tables in the club.In announcing that Stokes and Atkinson would not be considered for the 253-run defeat to the Black Caps that levelled the series, the ECB made clear that neither man had been involved in a physical altercation, but simply being out beyond midnight had broken team protocols.However, the finer details of a curfew set by England’s senior players and management in response to a raft of off-field incidents last winter ranging from Harry Brook being clocked by a bouncer in Wellington, New Zealand, at the end of a Halloween night out and alcohol featuring heavily in a mid-Ashes break in Noosa, remain open for debate. Ben Stokes has been withdrawn from the remainder of Durham’s test versus NorthamptonshireEngland coach Brendon McCullum alluded to this in his post-match press conference, when he said: ‘Look, even if there is ambiguity I think we’ve sat here and talked about the curfew, talked about standards, talked about many things we want to be known for as a cricket team.‘So, I think fundamentally when you represent your country you have certain standards you need to live up to and you’re not just representing yourself, you’re representing your family, the fans, the country, and you’re being paid to do it.‘You’ve got to have certain standards you need to adhere to. To suggest that perhaps whilst there may not have been a hard blueprint potentially, I mean like a hard factual (curfew), everyone knew what was going on.’Joe Root, England’s interim captain this week, was amongst seven players who left the Lord’s dressing room at around 5.30pm two Sundays ago and headed to the White Horse pub in Parson’s Green. All but Stokes and Atkinson returned to the team hotel in Kensington before 12am.In the immediate aftermath, the ECB’s director of cricket Rob Key revealed that Atkinson didn’t know about the curfew, but that it was hard to defend the breach since the rules had been clearly communicated to players by their representatives.However, it is understood that this took place at the end of an Ashes tour that Surrey seamer Atkinson had already departed because of a hamstring injury. And that the guidelines set relating to restrictions were insufficiently clear.It is not thought that they were formally communicated, with several centrally-contracted players unable to recall formal notification of timings.The independently-run regulator confirmed on Sunday that neither Stokes nor Atkinson had a case to answer.However, in naming both players in a 15-man squad for Nottingham – wicketkeeper Jamie Smith returns from paternity leave, and Ollie Robinson has shrugged off a knee niggle – the ECB confirmed their own probe had found the duo ‘to have breached specific contractual obligations that require England players to at all times maintain the highest standards of conduct and act in the best interests of England cricket.’They were given written warnings about future behaviour, but the ECB made clear ‘that no blame should be attached to the players for violent conduct at the nightclub.’Stokes, they say, was not involved in any altercation and did not witness either of two ‘unprovoked attacks’ by Auvaa on Atkinson.The governing body added that evidence they had seen ‘demonstrates Atkinson did not retaliate on either occasion’.