Case 6004278/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Reuben Quashie v London & Quadrant Housing Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004278/2025
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Reuben Quashie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing at Croydon by CVP on 11 November 2025, Employment Judge Lumby considered complaints brought by Mr Reuben Quashie against London & Quadrant Housing Trust. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The Tribunal struck out the complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and failure to provide particulars of employment under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a), stating that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment also stated that the claimant's remaining complaints remain, but did not determine those remaining complaints or award any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of wrongful dismissal was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment identifies this as a complaint of failure to provide particulars of employment and states that it was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(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.