Claimant v London Underground Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This claim was not determined in the present judgment which dealt only with a strike-out application relating to the unauthorised deduction from wages claim.
This claim was not determined in the present judgment which dealt only with a strike-out application relating to the unauthorised deduction from wages claim.
This claim was not determined in the present judgment which dealt only with a strike-out application relating to the unauthorised deduction from wages claim.
This claim was not determined in the present judgment which dealt only with a strike-out application relating to the unauthorised deduction from wages claim.
This claim was not determined in the present judgment which dealt only with a strike-out application relating to the unauthorised deduction from wages claim.
This claim was not determined in the present judgment which dealt only with a strike-out application relating to the unauthorised deduction from wages claim.
This claim was not determined in the present judgment which dealt only with a strike-out application relating to the unauthorised deduction from wages claim.
The tribunal found that the claim for unauthorised deduction of sick pay between 18 June and 17 October 2022 was res judicata, having been determined by a previous tribunal which found the sick pay was not properly payable during that period because the claimant failed to comply with sickness absence procedures. The tribunal held that this created a cause of action estoppel preventing the claim from being re-opened. Alternatively, the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
The claimant withdrew this claim by email dated 4 March 2025 and it was dismissed at a preliminary hearing on 14 August 2025 before Employment Judge Hook.
The claimant withdrew this claim by email dated 4 March 2025 and it was dismissed at a preliminary hearing on 14 August 2025 before Employment Judge Hook.
The claimant withdrew this claim by email dated 4 March 2025 and it was dismissed at a preliminary hearing on 14 August 2025 before Employment Judge Hook.
The claimant withdrew this claim by email dated 4 March 2025 and it was dismissed at a preliminary hearing on 14 August 2025 before Employment Judge Hook.
The claimant withdrew this claim by email dated 4 March 2025 and it was dismissed at a preliminary hearing on 14 August 2025 before Employment Judge Hook.
Facts
The claimant was employed by London Underground as a Customer Service Manager from 2004 until her dismissal for capability on 13 March 2024 following long-term sickness absence. This was her fourth employment tribunal claim against the respondent. A previous tribunal (case 3205396/2022) had determined that sick pay was not properly payable to the claimant between 18 June and 17 October 2022 because she failed to comply with sickness absence procedures. The claimant brought a fresh claim for unauthorised deduction of wages relating to the same period of sick pay.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unauthorised deduction from wages claim on the basis that it was res judicata. The previous tribunal had already determined as a matter of fact and law that the sick pay for the relevant period was not properly payable and had rejected the legal claim. This created a cause of action estoppel. The claimant's argument that the sick pay should have been reinstated following a disciplinary hearing was rejected as misconceived and the claim was also struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Practical note
A claimant cannot re-litigate a claim for unauthorised deduction of wages relating to the same period and same facts already determined by a previous tribunal, even if they seek to rely on different contractual arguments about what should have happened subsequently.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201548/2024
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Service Manager
- Service
- 20 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep