Case 3201130/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Ahmed v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 3201130/2022
- Decision date
- 17 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the Claimant transferred to the Trust under TUPE and was paid at least the London Living Wage from 1 October 2017, with annual increases applied from 1 April following the autumn announcements. It held there was no statutory right to the London Living Wage and no express or implied contractual term requiring the Trust to implement increases as soon as possible, or from the date of announcement. The complaint about London Living Wage deductions therefore failed because no additional wages were properly payable.
On paid holiday, the tribunal found there had been consultation and that the Claimant became contractually entitled to Agenda for Change paid holiday terms. It held that the Claimant had misinterpreted those terms, because leave for staff working 9.5-hour days was calculated in hours and converted back into days. The tribunal found the Trust had not denied him the paid holiday entitlement due under those terms.
The tribunal also accepted the Trust's jurisdictional argument on the holiday complaint, finding it was in substance a complaint about alleged lost days of leave rather than unpaid wages or holiday pay. It made alternative findings on time limits and waiver for the London Living Wage complaint, and found no breach of the ACAS Code that would have justified an uplift had either wages claim succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerning alleged shortfall between annual London Living Wage announcements and the Trust's 1 April implementation date. The tribunal held there was no contractual or other legal entitlement to the earlier payment date claimed, so no wages were properly payable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerning paid holiday, annual leave and bank holidays. The tribunal held the Claimant had not been denied paid holiday due under the applicable Agenda for Change terms, and also found the complaint was not in substance a claim for unpaid wages because he was paid the same whether on holiday or at work. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that complaints about breaks were dismissed upon withdrawal at a previous hearing before AREJ Burgher on 5 May 2023; they were not substantively determined in this judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Bear Scotland v Fulton
- Blue v Ashley
- Gestmin
- Abrahall v Nottingham City Council
- Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code on Discipline and Grievance
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.