Case 8000256/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Kleszyk v BEN Paisley Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000256/2025
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Kleszyk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent company had been dissolved. The claimant was notified by letter dated 18 March 2025 that the company would need to be restored to the Register at Companies House for the claim to proceed, and the case was sisted for six months.
The Tribunal later wrote to the claimant on 22 September 2025 asking for confirmation that action had been taken to restore the company. No reply was received. Further reminders were sent on 8 October 2025 and 21 October 2025, and there was still no response.
On 5 November 2025 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued, with a reply due by 19 November 2025. The claimant did not respond by that date.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim(s); it records only that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(d) 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.