Case 2304071/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Konrad Kulgawczyk v Paul Earl Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304071/2023
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Konrad Kulgawczyk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was heard by video at Croydon on 22 February 2024 before Employment Judge Fowell. The tribunal dealt with the case on a preliminary issue and struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(b) because the claimant's conduct of the proceedings was found to be scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious, under Rule 37(1)(c) for failure to comply with a Tribunal order made on 25 October 2023, and under Rule 47 for non-attendance.
The written judgment records only the strike-out decision and does not set out substantive findings on any underlying discrimination or other claim in the extracted text. The only financial order recorded is that Mr Kulgawczyk must pay Paul Earl Limited costs of £1,500. The note at the end of the judgment states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type(s) in the extracted text. The claim was struck out on a preliminary issue under Rule 37(1)(b), Rule 37(1)(c), and Rule 47, following the claimant's conduct of the proceedings, failure to comply with an order made on 25 October 2023, and non-attendance. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(b)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 47
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.