Case 1305765/2018 · Employment Tribunal
No Appearance For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1305765/2018
- Decision date
- 26 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No Appearance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 20 November 2019, before Employment Judge Gaskell, the claimant did not appear and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal considered claims by Mr A Badita against DHL Services Limited for sex discrimination, race discrimination, victimisation, and breach of contract.
The tribunal dismissed all of those claims for want of jurisdiction. It also recorded that the claims were scandalous, vexatious, and had no reasonable prospect of success, and that the claimant's conduct of the proceedings was scandalous, unreasonable, and vexatious. On that basis, the tribunal said the claims were liable to be struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The written record notes that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction; tribunal also said the claims were liable to be struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (b). | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction; tribunal also said the claims were liable to be struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (b). | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction; tribunal also said the claims were liable to be struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (b). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction; tribunal also said the claims were liable to be struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (b). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a) and (b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.