Case 1805341/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Kalinowski v Hunter Concrete Products — 2019
- Case reference
- 1805341/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Kalinowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 16 October 2019, the Tribunal gave Mr K Kalinowski an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why his unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy payment claims should not be struck out. The stated issue was that he had been employed for less than two years.
Mr Kalinowski did not make representations in writing, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim.
The judgment records no substantive determination on the merits of either claim and no monetary award. The decision is limited to the procedural strike out under rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the Tribunal gave the Claimant an opportunity by letter dated 16 October 2019 to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out because he had been employed for less than two years. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out under rule 37 for the same reason as the unfair dismissal claim: the Tribunal invited representations or a hearing on whether the statutory redundancy payment claim should be struck out because the Claimant had been employed for less than two years, and no sufficient response was received. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.