Case 1403287/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Kleister v Glen Dimplex UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403287/2022
- Decision date
- 22 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Kleister
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Midgley Date struck out Mr R Kleister's claims against Glen Dimplex UK Ltd by judgment dated 22 September 2023. The tribunal recorded two bases for strike out: rule 47, because the claimant did not attend the hearing, and rule 37, because his conduct of the proceedings was unreasonable.
The rule 37 finding was that Mr Kleister had not complied with case management directions and did not appear to be actively pursuing his claims. The judgment is procedural only and does not contain any findings on the substantive merits of the underlying claims.
No remedy was awarded and the written record does not specify any monetary sums. The judgment also records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment does not list the individual claim heads; this claim type is inferred from the public case listing. The tribunal struck out the claims without determining the merits. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not list the individual claim heads; this claim type is inferred from the public case listing. The tribunal struck out the claims without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not list the individual claim heads; this claim type is inferred from the public case listing. The tribunal struck out the claims without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Used for the protective award claim indicated by the public listing, because that claim type is not available in the locked taxonomy. The judgment does not list the individual claim heads; the tribunal struck out the claims without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47
- rule 37
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.