Case 2304151/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v London United Busways Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304151/2022
- Decision date
- 3 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a bus driver for the respondent and its predecessor for over 35 years before resigning, with his employment ending on 29 July 2022, to care for his wife. A driver pay increase was later agreed through collective bargaining, implemented on 16 September 2022, including a 9% increase backdated to 4 December 2021. The claimant sought £1,901.99 for the backdated increase up to his leaving date.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been paid the rate of wages current during his employment and that the later backdated increase applied only to employees still employed on the implementation date. The claimant could not identify any express contractual term, incorporated collective agreement, subsequent agreement, or established custom and practice giving leavers a right to receive back pay after employment ended.
The tribunal concluded that the burden was on the claimant to show legal entitlement to the money claimed. Because he had no ongoing contractual relationship when the increase was agreed and no contractual or implied right to the payment after leaving, the claim for arrears of pay failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was pleaded as arrears of pay for a 9% backdated pay increase from 4 December 2021 to 29 July 2022. The tribunal held it was not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- balance of probabilities
- custom and practice
- business efficacy
- Murco Petroleum Ltd v Forge [1987] IRLR 50
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.