Case 3320925/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Dionne Rogers v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3320925/2021
- Decision date
- 1 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JUDGMENT
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Dionne Rogers
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent had not presented a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge decided the case on the basis of the information before the tribunal. The judgment records that the claims succeed, but it does not set out separate reasons for each claim in this document.
No remedy was assessed in this judgment. Instead, the tribunal directed that the claimant's remedy would be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing listed for 23 March 2022 at Norwich Employment Tribunal.
The claimant was ordered to file and serve a witness statement, schedule of loss, and a bundle of documentary evidence relating to mitigation no later than 14 days before the remedy hearing. The judgment therefore records liability only, with no monetary award made at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that 'the claims succeed' but does not separately identify the outcome of the unfair dismissal claim beyond that general success finding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that 'the claims succeed' but does not separately identify the outcome of the breach of contract claim beyond that general success finding. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.