Case 3321045/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and were not represented. For the v Miss Klaudia Zakrzewska (Consultant). — 2022
- Case reference
- 3321045/2019
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KJ Palmer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and were not represented. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe consolidated proceedings concerned Jacob Milson and George Roden. The hearing took place on 7 January 2022 at Bury St Edmunds by CVP before Employment Judge KJ Palmer sitting alone. The claimants did not attend and were not represented; the respondent attended through Miss Klaudia Zakrzewska, a consultant.
The tribunal struck out all of the claimants' claims under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because they were not being actively pursued. The judgment does not record any merits findings on the underlying claims. It also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the case listing/context; the judgment itself only states that all claims in the consolidated proceedings were struck out for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the case listing/context; the judgment itself only states that all claims in the consolidated proceedings were struck out for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the case listing/context; the judgment itself only states that all claims in the consolidated proceedings were struck out for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type inferred from the case listing/context; the judgment itself only states that all claims in the consolidated proceedings were struck out for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.