Mr A G Badita v Mo Sys Engineering Ltd and others: 3203935/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 2022 |
| Date | 06 December 2022 |
| Published date | 20 December 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 3203935/2022 |
Case Number: 3203935/2022
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr Adrian Gheorghe Badita
Respondents: (1) Mo Sys Engineering Limited
(2) Safestay Plc
(3) Zachary Daniels Limited
(4) Robert Dyas (Holdings) Limited
(5) Delice De France (UK) Limited
Heard at: Ea st London Hearing Centre (by CVP)
On: 28 November 2022
Before: Employment Judge Crosfill
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondents: (1) Ruth Butt a Solicitor from Irwin Mitchell
(2) Will Haines a consultant
(3) David Jones of Counsel instructed by DTM Legal LLP
(4) Ruaraidh Fitzpatrick of Counsel instructed by Ince Gordon Dodd
LLP
(5) Robert Cater a consultant with Peninsula Group Limited
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s claims against each respondent are struck out pursuant to rule
37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of
Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis that the Claimant has conducted the
proceedings unreasonably and/or that the claims have no reasonable
prospects of success.
Case Number: 3203935/2022
2
REASONS
1. The Claimant presented his claims against all five Respondents using a common
claim form. His claim was presented to the employment tribunal on 20 June 2022.
The Claimant’s claim form gave very scant details of his claims against each
Respondent but it was reasonably apparent that the Claimant was alleging that he
had been discriminated against and/or victimised when he had applied for junior
accounting roles. As is usual practice in this region the matter was listed f or a
preliminary hearing for the purposes of case management.
2. Under cover of an email sent on 26 July 2022 the Claimant wrote to the tribunal
amongst the matters raised he said this (emphasis added):
‘The claimant has brought over 100 similar claims in various regions. The claimant
brought 100 similar claims for victimisation (the protected act for the victimisation is
for bringing proceedings under the Equality Act 2010 section 27(2)(a) against DHL
(1305765/2018) and direct race discrimination. Each employer uses a no Romanians
policy, because and the claimant was a blacklisted Romanian. The claimant will
prove everyone, the differences between the Romanians and all other people from
the United Kingdom, putting everyone in strict proof about the inferior people. As for
professional skills, Paul Dyer (former CEO of DHL Supply Chain UK/Ireland) is a
mentally retarded individual compared to the claimant. John Gilbert (former CEO of
DHL Supply Chain Global) has also resigned on 1 October 2019. The claimant avers
that he is always the first option for any job application in this country.
DHL admitted in writing to blacklisting the claimant, therefore, each respondent is
now exposed and unable to defend its case. DHL has already lost its case
(1305765/2018), but the HM Courts & Tribunals Service is intimidated by the UK
government. DHL lost even its case in the High Court (F90BM256), failing to respond
to a £1.000.000.000 claim for non-compliance with the GDPR. For moment all these
cases are unlawfully delayed by the UK government. Theresa May and Boris
Johnson unlawfully postponed all these cases, because are future Remedy
Hearings. Frank Appel, the CEO of Deutsche Post DHL Group, bribed the European
Commission and the UK, German, Romanian governments for restraining all civil
rights of the claimant.
Each defendant is invited to not file any defence, because for the pathetic lies written
there, everyone will be charged for perjury in the Magistrates’ Court. If someone
refuses to comply with this request, then must explain why considers that its defence
does not contain false statements.
Additionally, each defendant must disclose within 7 days, all the personal information
held about claimant. The claimant will enclose what information are held about him.
This request is made under Rule 31. If within 7 days, the defendant fails to disclose
all the personal information held about claimant, then its defence is automatically
struck out and charged for perjury…….
To continue reading
Request your trial