Case 1805146/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. K Rogers v Vertebrate Publishing Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805146/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. K Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs K Rogers' unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal recorded that the compensatory award was subject to a 100% Polkey deduction and was assessed at nil. It also stated that there was no basic award.
The tribunal further found that, when the proceedings commenced, the respondent was in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For that breach, the claimant was awarded two weeks' pay, which the judgment quantified at £1,069.62. The judgment also records that the recoupment regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim for unfair dismissal succeeded. The tribunal said the compensatory award was subject to a 100% Polkey deduction and was assessed as nil, and that there was no basic award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that, at the time the proceedings commenced, the respondent was in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded the claimant two weeks' pay, quantified at £1,069.62. | Upheld | — | £1,070 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,070
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey deduction
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.