Case 6011019/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Khushi Bharati v Mr Tushar Gupta — 2026
- Case reference
- 6011019/2025
- Decision date
- 10 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mia Milner-Moore
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Khushi Bharati
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing for case management on 10 February 2026. The tribunal clerk attempted to telephone her and sent an email asking why she was not in attendance, but no reply was received and there was no record of any communication explaining difficulty attending or connecting to the video hearing.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had not completed the hearing agenda, had not supplied a schedule of loss as ordered, and appeared not to have contacted the respondent since presenting the claim. Employment Judge Milner-Moore found that the claims were unclear and/or unquantified and could not proceed without further information and supporting evidence from the claimant.
Having considered rule 47 and the overriding objective, the tribunal dismissed the claims rather than adjourning and listing another hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claims were dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The judgment states that the claims being advanced were unclear and/or unquantified and does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claims were dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The judgment states that the claims being advanced were unclear and/or unquantified and does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claims were dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The judgment states that the claims being advanced were unclear and/or unquantified and does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claims were dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The judgment states that the claims being advanced were unclear and/or unquantified and does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The claims were dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The judgment states that the claims being advanced were unclear and/or unquantified and does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- overriding objective in rule 2
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.