Case 2219597/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Lodhi v Eight Assets Management Ltd (in Administration) and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219597/2024
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr I Lodhi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard from the Claimant in person, from Mr J Casey on behalf of the Second Respondent, and from Mr L O'Shaughnessy, counsel, on behalf of the Third Respondent. The judgment concerns the claims against the Third Respondent, Verto HR Ltd.
The Tribunal determined that the Claimant's claims against the Third Respondent were struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. The stated ground was that those claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims against the Third Respondent were struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The short judgment does not itemise which pleaded claims were brought against the Third Respondent; this claim type is taken from the listing categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims against the Third Respondent were struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The short judgment does not itemise which pleaded claims were brought against the Third Respondent; this claim type is taken from the listing categories. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims against the Third Respondent were struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The short judgment does not itemise which pleaded claims were brought against the Third Respondent; this claim type is taken from the listing categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims against the Third Respondent were struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The short judgment does not itemise which pleaded claims were brought against the Third Respondent; this claim type is taken from the listing categories. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, r38(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect 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.