Cases→6014077/2024

Claimant v London Underground Limited

10 December 2024Before Employment Judge GoodmanLondon Centralin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

Claim concerned alleged over-deduction of pension contributions in 2000 at trained rather than training salary rate. Struck out as claim presented 24 years after deduction, barred by 2-year backstop under ERA 1996 s.23(4A). Also failed reasonably practicable test: claimant aware of issue by 2021 grievance response but did not act until 2024 without adequate explanation.

Direct Discrimination(age)struck out

Claim alleged those starting post-2003 (younger workers) treated more favourably regarding pension scheme entry. Struck out as out of time: discrimination occurred 2000-2008 but claim brought 2024. Not just and equitable to extend time given: claimant knew of issue by 2021, weak merits (no evidence age motivated employer's administrative error), substantial evidential difficulties for respondent to prove age composition of workforce 20+ years ago, and minimal financial prejudice to claimant (£122 or ability to buy back 34 days service).

Facts

Claimant started as customer service assistant in April 2000 and was entered into pension scheme after 4-week training period, with contributions calculated at trained salary rate (£16,000) not training rate (£13,000). In 2003 employer recognised contract required immediate scheme entry. Following union negotiation, 2008 letters offered affected employees buyback of missing service at trained rate. Claimant says he did not receive 2008 letters due to house move. In 2021 he raised grievance and was offered buyback for £62.63 but did not respond. In 2024 he claimed unlawful deduction (overpaid contributions in 2000) and age discrimination (post-2003 starters treated more favourably).

Decision

Both claims struck out as out of time. Wage claim barred by 2-year backstop under ERA s.23(4A) and claimant failed to show not reasonably practicable given awareness by 2021. Age discrimination claim failed just and equitable test: substantial unexplained delay after 2021, weak merits (no evidence age motivated administrative error), severe evidential difficulties for respondent proving age composition 20+ years ago, and minimal financial prejudice to claimant who could still buy back missing service.

Practical note

Even arguable claims of principle will be struck out for delay where claimant had years to act after discovering the issue, the merits are weak, evidential difficulties are substantial, and financial loss is minimal or remediable.

Legal authorities cited

Keeble v British Coal Corporation [1997] IRLR 336Walls Meat Limited v Khan [1979] ICR 52Palmer and anor v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372Porter v Bandridge Limited [1978] ICR 943Somerset County Council v Chambers EAT/0417/12Abertawe Bro Morganwd University Local Health Board v Morgan [2018] EWCA Civ 640Ahmed v Ministry of Justice UKEAT/390/14

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.123(3)Equality Act 2010 s.123ERA 1996 s.13ERA 1996 s.23ERA 1996 s.23(4)ERA 1996 s.23(4A)ERA 1996 s.27(2)(c)Equality Act 2010 s.13

Case details

Case number
6014077/2024
Decision date
10 December 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Name
London Underground Limited
Sector
transport
Represented
Yes

Employment details

Role
Customer Service Assistant
Salary band
£15,000–£20,000

Claimant representation

Represented
No
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →