Case 2304159/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Dr D Rogers v TSM Systems Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304159/2025
- Decision date
- 3 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr D Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that TSM Systems Limited failed to pay Dr D Rogers for annual leave accrued but untaken on termination of employment. It ordered the Respondent to pay the gross sum of £105.23 as the value of that accrued annual leave.
The Tribunal also found that the Respondent failed to provide itemised statements of pay between August 2023 and June 2024. The judgment records that a counterclaim was struck out because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the Respondent failed to pay for annual leave accrued but untaken on termination and must pay the gross sum of £105.23. | Upheld | — | £105 |
| Other | The judgment states that the Respondent failed to provide itemised statements of pay between August 2023 and June 2024. The locked taxonomy does not include a specific itemised pay statement claim type. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the counterclaim is struck out because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine it. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £105
- 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.