Case 1403593/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Rostami v Central Flying Instructors School Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403593/2019
- Decision date
- 28 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Rostami
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Dawson found for the claimant, Mrs J Rostami, on all three matters recorded in the judgment. The respondent, Central Flying Instructors School Ltd, was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from wages, to have dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice, and to have dismissed her by reason of redundancy.
On the wages claim, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £115. On the notice claim, the tribunal awarded damages of £268.75 for breach of contract. On the redundancy claim, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £403.13.
The judgment records no separate findings on interest, injury to feelings, basic award, or compensatory award beyond the three sums ordered. The total of the sums ordered is £786.88.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £115. | Upheld | — | £115 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £268.75. | Upheld | — | £269 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £403.13. | Upheld | — | £403 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £787
- 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.