Case 6003443/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jagdish Gill v Sara Beheshti — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003443/2025
- Decision date
- 7 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jagdish Gill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded three complaints by Ms Jagdish Gill against Sara Beheshti: unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, breach of contract under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
All three complaints were struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the tribunal held that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and it records no monetary award or remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.