Case 3202492/2019 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mrs Rachael Rogers (2) Mr Michael Rogers (3) Mr Elliot Rogers v FTSS UK Limited (in administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202492/2019
- Decision date
- 26 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mrs Rachael Rogers (2) Mr Michael Rogers (3) Mr Elliot Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 23 July 2021 before Employment Judge Gardiner, with the Claimants appearing in person and no attendance for the Respondent, the tribunal held that the complaints brought by Mrs Rachael Rogers and Mr Michael Rogers were not well founded and dismissed them. The extracted judgment does not specify the precise legal basis of those complaints.
Mr Elliot Rogers succeeded in part. The tribunal recorded that he was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £253.12 and unpaid notice pay of £253.12. His claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay was dismissed because the administrator had not given permission for that claim to proceed. Judgment was dated 26 July 2021.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment says the complaints made by Mrs Rachael Rogers were not well founded, but it does not specify the precise legal basis of those complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The extracted judgment says the complaints made by Mr Michael Rogers were not well founded, but it does not specify the precise legal basis of those complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Mr Elliot Rogers was awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £253.12. | Upheld | — | £253 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as unpaid notice pay. | Upheld | — | £253 |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the administrator had not given permission for the claim to proceed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £506
- 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.