Case 6015188/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Bagha v Euro Communications Distribution Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015188/2024
- Decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Bagha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Birmingham by CVP on 3 July 2025, Employment Judge Edmonds gave an oral preliminary judgment in Mr S Bagha's case against Euro Communications Distribution Limited. The tribunal held that the claim was not to be struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) on the ground that it was vexatious, and also not to be struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal further declined to issue a deposit order under Rule 40 because the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant's application to amend was listed to be considered at a further hearing on 4 July 2025, and he was ordered to send the amendment application to the tribunal and the respondent by 8am that morning. The judgment records that if he did not do so, the tribunal would consider strike-out under Rules 38(b), (c), (d) and/or (e).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary oral decision only. The tribunal held that the claim was not to be struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as vexatious and was not to be struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. No merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 40
- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rules 38(b), 38(c), 38(d) and 38(e)
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.