Case 2302103/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Jolanta Klos v Select Service Partner UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302103/2024
- Decision date
- 10 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hamour
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jolanta Klos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Hamour, sitting alone, on 10 June 2025. The claimant, Jolanta Klos, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms L Croft, Solicitor. The tribunal dealt with the respondent's strike out application on the basis that the pleaded claims did not have reasonable prospects of success.
The claimant's claim for detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure was struck out and dismissed. The tribunal stated that it did not have reasonable prospects of success and granted the respondent's application.
The claimant's race discrimination claim was also struck out and dismissed for the same reason. No remedy was awarded, and the judgment records that oral reasons were given, with written reasons unavailable unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claim was pleaded as detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure. The tribunal held it did not have reasonable prospects of success, granted the respondent's strike out application, and described the claim as struck out and dismissed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was held not to have reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal granted the respondent's application for strike out and described the claim as struck out and dismissed. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonable prospects of success
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.