Case 2306347/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rogers v Lead Element Security Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306347/2023
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Heath heard the case at London South on 30 and 31 January 2025. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it had no jurisdiction to consider it. It also recorded that the disability discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal further found that the claimant's notice pay claim and his unauthorised deduction from wages claim were not well-founded and dismissed both claims. The judgment does not record any monetary award, and no remedy was ordered.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the claim because it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claim was dismissed on its withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's notice pay claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.