Case 3202446/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Rogers v Deborah Tyler Curtis — 2023
- Case reference
- 3202446/2020
- Decision date
- 30 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the East London Employment Tribunals on 17 September 2020. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the claimant’s claims for redundancy payment, breach of contract, unpaid holiday pay and wages succeeded.
The judgment does not record any substantive dispute findings on liability beyond the respondent’s failure to respond in time. It records only that the listed claims succeeded in accordance with Rule 21.
A remedy hearing was listed for 5 May 2023 at 10:00 for 3 hours. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Allowed under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Allowed under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Allowed under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Allowed under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.