Case 3312555/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Kluza v v Easyjet Airline Company Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3312555/2023
- Decision date
- 8 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Kluza v
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Kluza was employed by easyJet Airline Company Limited from 14 February 2023 to 29 August 2023 and presented her claim on 1 November 2023. The judgment does not identify the substantive causes of action. After a lengthy delay that may have resulted from a tribunal administrative oversight, a preliminary hearing was listed for 8 July 2026. The respondent's representative tried to contact Miss Kluza by email, text and post about the case management agenda but received no response. The tribunal's digital file showed that she had last contacted the tribunal on 18 June 2024.
Miss Kluza did not attend or have representation at the video hearing. The tribunal clerk's attempts to reach her by telephone and email brought no response, and the tribunal had no information explaining her absence. Employment Judge Hawksworth dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, finding that the lack of contact indicated that Miss Kluza had decided not to pursue it. No remedy was awarded. The judgment states that the decision may be reconsidered if there was a good reason for her failure to attend, subject to a request being made within 14 days of the judgment and reasons being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive causes of action. It dismisses the claimant's claim as a whole under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.