Case 3322439/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Kloczkowski v IKEA Distribution Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3322439/2021
- Decision date
- 9 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Kloczkowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Watford on 23 September 2022, Employment Judge Shore considered the claimant's ET1 against IKEA Distribution Services Limited. Five pleaded matters were dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them: alleged breaches of section 1(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Article 8 of Part I of Schedule I to the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, and section 1(c) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
For the avoidance of doubt, the only claims permitted to proceed to a final hearing were an unfair dismissal claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and a harassment claim related to the protected characteristic of religion or belief under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. This record does not decide the merits of those claims; it records only that they remain live for final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Dismissed as the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the pleaded claim under section 1(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Dismissed as the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the pleaded claim under Article 8 of Part I of Schedule I to the Human Rights Act 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Dismissed as the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the pleaded claim under Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Dismissed as the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the pleaded claim under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Dismissed as the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the pleaded claim under section 1(c) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was allowed to proceed to a final hearing; no merits determination was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | A harassment claim related to religion or belief under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was allowed to proceed to a final hearing; no merits determination was made in this judgment. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 26 of the Equality Act 2010
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.
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.