Case 3201949/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Kischkel v PayWeeklyFlooringUK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201949/2023
- Decision date
- 17 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Kischkel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 17 May 2024, heard remotely by video at East London Hearing Centre, Employment Judge S Shore recorded that Mr K Kischkel appeared in person and the respondent did not appear. The judgment corrected the respondent's name to PayWeeklyFlooringUK Ltd.
Applying Rule 37(1)(b)-(e) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal found that the claimant had conducted the proceedings in an unreasonable manner, had failed to comply with tribunal orders, had not actively pursued the claim, and that a fair hearing was no longer possible. On that basis, all of the claimant's claims were struck out.
The tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with that claim because the claimant had made no claim for breach of contract under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extract does not list the individual heads of the claimant's case; it records that all of the claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(b)-(e). | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's claim was dismissed because the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with it; the judgment says the claimant had made no breach of contract claim under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(b)-(e) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Article 3, Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
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.