Case 2301117/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mughal v Virgin Media Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301117/2022
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Mughal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing listed for 12 August 2022 was postponed because the claimant attended by CVP from Egypt and there was no permission in place for him to give evidence from abroad. The tribunal ordered that the hearing be relisted for 11 November 2022.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had brought claims for a redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay and other payments. It was established that he had been paid a contractual redundancy payment in excess of the statutory scheme, so there was no statutory redundancy payment claim; that claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The remaining issue identified for a later hearing was whether, under the claimant's contract and commission scheme, he had been paid the correct contractual redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay on termination. The claimant was ordered to provide a witness statement by 20 September 2022, failing which his claim would be dismissed without further order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim for a statutory redundancy payment was dismissed upon withdrawal. Other claims about notice pay, holiday pay, contractual redundancy payment calculation, and other payments were identified but not finally determined in this judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Presidential Guidance - Taking Oral Evidence by Video or Telephone for Persons Located Abroad
- burden of proof
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.