Case 6029951/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Emma Rogers v Nirvana maintenance — 2025
- Case reference
- 6029951/2025
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Emma Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the London South Employment Tribunal on 13 August 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge stated that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the claimant, Emma Rogers, was dismissed in breach of contract because she was not given one week’s notice to terminate her employment. The respondent was ordered to pay damages of £721.00 gross.
The judgment records that the claimant must account to HM Revenue & Customs for any income tax and employee’s National Insurance contributions due on the sum paid under the judgment. The hearing listed for 19 January 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract because she was not given one week’s notice to terminate employment. Damages were awarded in the gross sum of £721.00. | Upheld | — | £721 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £721
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.