Case 2302668/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Virgil v TATA Consulting Service Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302668/2024
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Virgil
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment concerns a costs application after the two-day hearing listed for 20 November 2024 could not proceed because the hearing bundle was not in a state in which the case could be heard. The respondent applied for a costs order under Rule 74 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, and the claimant opposed the application. The underlying proceedings were an unfair dismissal claim with notice and holiday pay attached, but those merits were not decided in this judgment.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's allegations that the respondent had tampered with his materials. It found that the matters complained of were redaction of personal information from payslips and spreadsheet cells not being expanded to show the full text, rather than deliberate alteration of documents. It also found that the respondent had been engaging with the claimant over the bundle, that duplicated emails had been included to preserve chronology, and that the claimant acted unreasonably in refusing a chronological bundle despite the notice of hearing requiring documents to be in date order. The tribunal further found that the claimant's allegations that the respondent and/or its solicitor were hiding evidence were totally unfounded.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the threshold for unreasonable behaviour was met and that a costs order in principle was appropriate. In exercising discretion, it took into account that the claimant was a litigant in person, had been warned by the respondent about the possibility of adjournment, did not intend to cause delay but was reckless as to the risk, and that his conduct had caused a wasted day of tribunal time and delay in the case. The respondent sought £20,000 for a two-day brief for counsel, but the tribunal considered that excessive for a matter of this type and said it would expect no more than £5,000 for counsel's attendance. Having also regard to the claimant's limited means, the tribunal ordered him to pay £1,000 in costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This was the respondent's Rule 74 costs application, not a determination of the underlying unfair dismissal, notice pay or holiday pay claims. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £1,000 in costs for the adjourned hearing. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 74 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 82 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 76(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.