Mr Adrian Gheorghe Badita v Mo Sys Engineering Limited and 4 others — 2022

Mr Adrian Gheorghe Badita presented a common claim form against five respondents on 20 June 2022. Although the claim form was sparse, the tribunal understood the case to be one of direct race discrimination and victimisation arising from unsuccessful applications for junior accounting roles. In later correspondence the claimant said he had been blacklisted by DHL and sought disclosure, a postponement, and a referral to the CJEU. The tribunal rejected his recusal objection and held that it had no power to make a CJEU reference after exit day.

At the hearing the tribunal found that the claimant repeatedly interrupted, refused to follow directions, used the chat function when muted, and used abusive and racist language towards representatives and tribunal personnel. The tribunal found that these matters formed part of the conduct of the proceedings, that the claimant was wholly unrepentant, and that there was no realistic prospect that his behaviour would moderate if the case continued. It concluded that a fair trial was impossible and that strike out under rule 37 was proportionate.

On the merits, the tribunal found no admission of blacklisting in the DHL correspondence relied on by the claimant, and no evidence that any respondent had communicated with DHL or knew of any protected act. It accepted that the claimant had applied for jobs and that he was Romanian, but held that nationality alone was not enough to permit an inference of race discrimination. The broader theory that DHL, governments, or HMCTS were influencing the hiring decisions was described as speculative and fantastical. The tribunal also found that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success.

All claims were therefore struck out under rule 37 on both grounds relied upon: unreasonable conduct making a fair trial impossible, and no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal noted that any costs applications would have to be made separately in writing.