Case 3320792/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Klamut v v Calex UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3320792/2021
- Decision date
- 20 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Klamut v
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Klamut was employed by Calex UK Limited from 22 July 2019 until his resignation took effect on 12 November 2021. His claim form was presented on 26 September 2021, during his notice period, but the reasons judgment records that it was not clear from the claim form what complaint he wanted to bring.
A preliminary hearing was listed to decide whether the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the complaint. At the public hearing on 20 October 2022, Mr Klamut did not attend, did not send the skeleton argument ordered by Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, and had not been in contact with the respondent since the previous hearing. The tribunal waited until 14.20, and the clerk’s attempts to contact him by phone and email were unsuccessful.
In those circumstances, Employment Judge Hawksworth concluded that Mr Klamut had decided not to pursue the claim and dismissed it under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 for non-attendance. The decision states that the dismissal brought the claim to an end, but it could be reconsidered if Mr Klamut later showed a good reason for not attending and for not informing the tribunal.
No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment did not identify the underlying complaint with specificity. It records that it was not clear from the claim form what complaint the claimant wanted to bring, and the claim was dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing or comply with the tribunal order requiring a skeleton argument. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, 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.