Case 3303528/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Nina Kabra v Mr Tamas Baris — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303528/2024
- Decision date
- 16 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Nina Kabra
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Kabra presented her claim on 27 March 2024 and ticked boxes for religion or belief discrimination, redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay, but gave no details of the allegations. Mr Tamas Baris did not file a response. No merits findings were made because the tribunal dealt only with case management and strike-out.
A notice for the final hearing was sent on 17 January 2025 with orders requiring the claimant to disclose relevant documents, provide a witness statement to the respondent by 14 February 2025, and send electronic copies of the statements she intended to rely on to the tribunal by 10 April 2025. The claimant did not send the tribunal copies of her witness statement, and it was not known whether she complied with the disclosure order. On 16 April 2025, when asked by Watford Listing to send documents for the hearing, she replied that she was homeless abroad and asked for the email address to be removed; she also referred to other cases. She did not attend the hearing on 17 April 2025, and no application to postpone was made.
Employment Judge Alliott held that the claimant had not given details of her claim, had failed to comply with the order to provide documents to the tribunal, and had not attended the hearing. The judge found that her conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable and that the claim was not being actively pursued. The claim was therefore struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (d) and Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claimant ticked religion or belief discrimination on the claim form, but gave no particulars. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rules 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant ticked redundancy payment on the claim form, but gave no particulars. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rules 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant ticked notice pay on the claim form, but gave no particulars. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rules 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant ticked holiday pay on the claim form, but gave no particulars. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rules 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant ticked arrears of pay on the claim form, but gave no particulars. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rules 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rules 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- unreasonable conduct
- not actively pursued
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.