Case 2304972/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr KAPILYA NYIRENDA v Virgin Media Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304972/2022
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hena Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr KAPILYA NYIRENDA
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal listed the matter for a final hearing on 30 June 2023. The claimant did not attend, and the Tribunal recorded that he did not engage despite being called and emailed.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to actively pursue the claim and had not submitted evidence. It recorded that although he told the respondent on 7 June 2023 that he was still pursuing the claim, he did not provide documents he wished to rely on and had previously failed to engage with correspondence about preparation of the claim.
The claim was struck out because of the manner in which proceedings had been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant, because it had not been actively pursued, and because the Tribunal considered that a fair hearing was no longer possible. The Tribunal also recorded that the claimant had provided no medical evidence about any difficulty engaging with the proceedings and had not made written representations explaining his non-attendance or why the claim should continue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk category identifies the claim as unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment itself does not describe the substantive wage allegation, only that the claim was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.