Case 2200215/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Jafarov v CTF Electrical Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200215/2022
- Decision date
- 17 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Jafarov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London Central Employment Tribunal on 11 January 2022. The respondent, CTF Electrical Limited, failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Akhtar therefore decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
On 17 July 2023 the tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract. The judgment did not assess remedy finally at that stage. Instead, it stated that the remedy to which Mr F Jafarov was entitled would be determined at a separate remedy hearing, and the hearings listed for 20 and 21 June 2023 were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; remedy to be determined at a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; remedy to be determined at a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Upheld under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; remedy to be determined at a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals 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.