Mr K Saeed v Hermes Parcelnet Ltd, T/a Evri: 1309104/2022
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out. ORDER In light of the above Judgment, the preliminary hearing on 8 December 2023 and the final hearing on 8 and 9 April 2024 are cancelled.REASONS
[1]By way of background, I [Employment Judge Camp] refer to the written record of the preliminary hearing that took place in the Midlands (West) region by telephone on 12 September 2023. That written record was sent to the parties on 13 September 2023.[2]At and following the preliminary hearing, which the claimant did not attend (without warning or explanation), I issued a strike out warning to the claimant, stating that I was proposing to strike out the claim because I thought the claimant’s claim was not being actively pursued and had no reasonable prospects of success. In the case management orders I made, in paragraphs 3 and 4, I explained why I thought that was the case.[3]I gave the claimant 14 days from the date the orders were sent to him to respond to the strike out warning. In my order, I specified what information he had to provide to the Tribunal if he objected to his claim being struck out. The information he was required to provide included an explanation for his non-attendance at the preliminary hearing, clarification and particularisation of his claim, and an explanation of the basis upon which his claim had reasonable prospects of success.[4]The 14 days expired on 27 September 2023. The only thing received by the Tribunal from the claimant since the preliminary hearing was an email sent on 18 September 2023, addressed to one of my colleagues (Employment Judge Faulkner), and not copied to the respondent’s representatives in breach of rule 92 and of my orders. 1 of 3[5]The claimant’s email of 18 September 2023 reads as follows: Dear HON Judge Faulkner, My name is KASAM SAEED, A Legal British Citizen & A Qualified HGV Driver, Resident of (145 Barker Street, OLDBURY, B68 9UF). My Case Number is (1309104/2022), Hermes - EVRI, Birmingham. I would like to Draw Your Attention to a few Mega Crimes & a Few Incidents in the Last Ten Years, as I have been Investigating all these High Official Criminals here in the West Midlands. I would like to thank you for your time & For Reading My Legal Cases which have been Ignored deliberately for the last Nine Years? There are a few different groups Involved in KASAM SAEED's assassination & Threatening as they have used Fake Accusation & False Flag Operation to criminalize KASAM SAEED. Please Look At the Document attached? Thanks for your time & consideration.[6]Attached to the email were 8 Word documents and 3 pdfs. In them, the claimant makes allegations against various people – mainly employment agencies, job centre staff and police officers – of various kinds, including allegations that a work coach at a job centre “wanted to Burn Muslim-Families & Muslim-Men” and that a manager at the same job centre tried to murder the claimant in 2014 and 2015. The claimant also references, amongst other things, “paedophilia, childpornography, L.G.B.T.Q prostitution, drug-dealers & Sarah Everard killers”.[7]Most of the attachments certainly have nothing to do with this claim. It is unclear from their contents whether the claimant thinks that any of them have anything to do with this claim. None of them is addressed to the Tribunal or provides any of the information I ordered the claimant to provide.[8]In the circumstances, nothing has happened to alter the provisional view expressed in the strike out warning in the written record of the preliminary hearing of 12 September 2023 that the claim is not being actively pursued and has no reasonable prospects of success; nor has anything happened to weaken any of the reasons I gave for taking that view. If anything, the claimant’s position and that of his claim is now worse than it was when I issued that warning, in that if he does object to his claim being struck out (and his email does not say he does), he is in breach of the orders that I made for the provision of additional information.[9]In the above circumstances, I exercise the discretion I have to strike out the claim pursuant to rules 37(1)(a) and (d). 2 of 3