Unfair dismissal matter tossed over ‘threatening’ emails

A former employee of an investment company had his unfair dismissal case tossed after he sent hundreds of threatening emails, including one that claimed he would “finish the job” and “when I shoot, it’s a double tap to the head”.

Fair Work Commission (FWC) deputy president Thomas Roberts granted Glenbourne Investments’ application to toss an unfair dismissal proceeding brought by former employee, Peter Kha, who breached two orders to restrict his correspondence to certain recipients and on matters of relevance.

Between 30 September and 7 October, and approximately 11 days after the orders were made, Kha sent more than 205 emails, which consisted of more than 1,800 pages. It was not the complete list, as more were being sent as the application was made.

Roberts said many of the emails contained statements that had “little if any” connection to the issues in dispute, were “threatening in nature”, and included content that was “nonsensical”.

In an email to Glenbourne Investment’s CEO and his sons, Kha wrote: “If you step against me, you better finish the job. Because when I shoot, it’s a double tap to the head. You won’t crawl. You won’t recover. You’ll rot exactly where I left you.”

The solicitor received an email with “The Lioness and Lessons of the 500 pages”, and referred to her as a “lioness of Greek origin”.

Including capitalisation and format, the email read: “And yes, I’ll admit, the humour in it was irresistible HAHA Because when the tone is satirical – when the language dances between absurdity and genius – it FORCES the opposition to wade through hundreds of pages of NONSENSE just to confirm whether it’s nonsense or prophecy. That’s not harassment; that’s psychological ENDURANCE testing.”

“NO LAWYER enjoys reviewing 500 pages of chaotic satire, and NO NARCISSIST survives being OUT-REASONED by someone who WEAPONISED emojis, memes, and tone.”

Emails that included threats against Glenbourne Investments’ staff, which included photographs of both them and the company’s venues.

Kha did not provide an explanation for his conduct, provide evidence, or challenge the evidence of Glenbourne Investments.

“His conduct was in my view deliberate, vexatious and designed to cause the respondent and a number of its staff, at the very least, inconvenience and distress,” Roberts said.

The case: Mr Peter Kha v Glenbourne Investments Pty Ltd (U2025/11388).