Case 6007231/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Rogers v Aviva Employment Servies Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007231/2024
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mr A Fryer, Ms M Farley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Cardiff hearing on 29 September to 3 October 2025, the unanimous tribunal comprising Employment Judge C Sharp, Mr A Fryer and Ms M Farley dismissed all of the claims before it. The written record states that the Claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were each held not well founded and dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the Claimant’s belief discrimination claims, described in the judgment as direct belief discrimination and indirect belief discrimination, together with the claim of harassment relating to belief. Each of those claims was recorded as not well founded.
The written decision contains the dispositional terms only. It notes that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested, so no further factual findings or remedy figures are recorded in this document.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the wrongful dismissal claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded as a direct belief discrimination claim; the tribunal held it was not well founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded as an indirect belief discrimination claim; the tribunal held it was not well founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Recorded as harassment relating to belief; the tribunal held it was not well founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.