Case 2303950/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sam Perry v St Christophers School (Canterbury) Limited (in Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303950/2018
- Decision date
- 20 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sam Perry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of the Claimant, Mrs Sam Perry, against St Christophers School (Canterbury) Limited (in Liquidation). The tribunal recorded that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages, that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and that she was unfairly dismissed. It also recorded that the Claimant was entitled to a protective award.
The judgment states that the claims succeeded, but it does not set out the underlying facts or reasoning in the extracted text provided. It also states that the remedy to which the Claimant is entitled would be determined at a remedy hearing, so no monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the Claimant was entitled to a protective award. | Upheld | — | — |
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.