Case 1305494/2018 · Employment Tribunal
At a preliminary hearing the tribunal considered strike-out applications by 47 respondents and the claimant's request for specific disclosure. The claimant's pleaded case was that, after an earlier dismissal by DHL, he had been blacklisted, had unsuccessfully applied for jobs through the respondents, and had been rejected because he was Romanian and/or because he had brought proceedings against DHL.
The tribunal refused the disclosure application as premature. It held that the pleadings advanced a speculative and fanciful theory of a worldwide blacklist and conspiracy, with no pleaded facts capable of proving the alleged blacklist or any connection between the respondents and DHL. On that basis it found the claims scandalous, vexatious and with no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37(1)(a).
The tribunal also found that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted was scandalous, vexatious and unreasonable under Rule 37(1)(b), referring to allegations of corruption against judges and representatives, insulting correspondence, and references such as "final solution". It struck out all claims against the 47 respondents. The tribunal noted that if the claims had shown some minimal prospect of success it would have been minded to consider a £1,000 deposit per respondent, but no deposit order was made because the claims were struck out.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The pleaded basis was that unsuccessful applications were because it became known that the claimant was Romanian. The tribunal struck the claim out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (b). | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The pleaded basis was that the claimant had been blacklisted after bringing proceedings against DHL. The tribunal struck the claim out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (b). | Struck out | — | — |
The 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.
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.