Case 6009720/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kate Roberts v The College of Matrons — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009720/2025
- Decision date
- 3 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Kate Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Kate Roberts' application for interim relief was found well founded and granted. The tribunal made a continuation of contract order under section 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of the claimant's contract of employment dated 2 May 2024, as amended, to run from the date of termination stated in the judgment, 19 March 2023, until the determination or settlement of the claim for unfair dismissal. The order extended to the provision of accommodation in clause 4.2.
The respondent was ordered to pay £432.20 net within 28 days in respect of salary from the date of termination to the date of the hearing, covering the period 20 March 2025 to 10 April 2025. The tribunal also ordered payment of £1,296.96 on the 25th of each month from April 2025 until final determination or settlement, and recorded that the April 2025 sum was to be reduced to £864.66 by agreement to reflect the amount already awarded for that month.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for interim relief under section 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The order refers to the claimant's underlying unfair dismissal claim, but this decision does not determine the merits of that claim. The text states the date of termination as 19 March 2023, although the salary period ordered in paragraph 3 runs from 20 March 2025 to 10 April 2025. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.