Case 1403062/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Ms M Rodgers ( Pannell) v Virgin Media Limited — 2018

Case reference: 1403062/2018
Decision date: 5 December 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Pirani Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms M Rodgers ( Pannell)

Respondent

Virgin Media Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The judgment was issued on liability only under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to present a valid response to the claim.

On that basis, the claimant succeeded in her claims against the respondent. The listed telephone case management preliminary hearing was cancelled and a three-hour remedy hearing was to be listed, with notification details to follow.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Equal pay	The gov.uk listing category identifies an Equal Pay Act claim. The judgment itself states only that the claimant succeeds in her claims after the respondent failed to present a valid response.	Upheld	—	—
Sex discrimination	The gov.uk listing category identifies a sex discrimination claim. The judgment itself states only that the claimant succeeds in her claims after the respondent failed to present a valid response.	Upheld	Sex	—
Unfair dismissal	The gov.uk listing category identifies an unfair dismissal claim. The judgment itself states only that the claimant succeeds in her claims after the respondent failed to present a valid response.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.