Claimant v London Borough of Newham
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish an unauthorised deduction. The claimant relied solely on an August 2024 payslip showing a deduction of £4,924 described as 'Sick Offset Retroactive'. The claimant provided no previous payslips or other evidence to demonstrate the deduction was incorrect or unauthorised. The employment contract contained a sick pay policy and overpayment clause permitting deductions where overpayments occurred, but the claimant provided no evidence about whether or how these were applied. The tribunal found no basis on which to conclude the deduction was unauthorised.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the London Borough of Newham from November 2023 and his employment ended around August 2024. He took sick leave during his probationary period around March-May 2024 and claimed statutory sick pay. His August 2024 payslip showed a deduction of £4,924 described as 'Sick Offset Retroactive'. The claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders to particularise his claim or provide supporting evidence despite multiple requests from both the tribunal and the respondent. At the hearing, he declined to give oral evidence or adduce additional documents, relying solely on the payslip and his employment contract.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deduction claim due to insufficient evidence. The claimant provided only a single payslip showing the deduction and his employment contract, which contained provisions for sick pay and recovery of overpayments. Without previous payslips or other evidence, the tribunal could not conclude the deduction was incorrect or unauthorised. The respondent's costs application was refused despite findings of unreasonable conduct and breach of orders, taking into account the claimant's litigant-in-person status and financial circumstances.
Practical note
Claimants pursuing unlawful deduction claims must provide sufficient evidence beyond a single payslip to establish that a deduction was unauthorised, particularly where the employment contract contains provisions permitting deductions for overpayments.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016280/2024
- Decision date
- 24 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- London Borough of Newham
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No