Case 1309104/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kasam Saeed v Hermes Parcelnet Limited, trading as Evri — 2023
- Case reference
- 1309104/2022
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kasam Saeed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 12 September 2023 and did so without warning or explanation. The Employment Judge then issued a strike-out warning because the claim appeared not to be actively pursued and appeared to have no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant was given 14 days to respond with an explanation for his absence, clarification and particularisation of the claim, and an explanation of how the claim had reasonable prospects of success.
The only material received by the tribunal after the preliminary hearing was an email sent on 18 September 2023 to a different employment judge, not copied to the respondent in breach of rule 92 and the judge's orders. The email and attached documents contained wide-ranging allegations against various people, including employment agencies, job centre staff and police officers, but the judge said most of the material had nothing to do with this claim and none of it provided the information that had been ordered.
By the time the 14-day period expired on 27 September 2023, nothing had been done to change the provisional view set out in the strike-out warning. The judge held that the position was, if anything, worse because the claimant had still not complied with the order for further information. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rules 37(1)(a) and (d), and cancelled the preliminary hearing listed for 8 December 2023 and the final hearing listed for 8 and 9 April 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment reasons do not restate the substantive claim type; this classification follows the case listing context. The entire claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) and (d). | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment reasons do not restate the substantive claim type; this classification follows the case listing context. The entire claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) and (d). | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rules 37(1)(a) and (d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- not actively pursued
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.