Case 3220557/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Niouman v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3220557/2020
- Decision date
- 31 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Niouman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unauthorised deductions from wages concerning London Weighting Allowance, overtime at time and a half, and holiday pay. The tribunal applied the Employment Rights Act 1996 provisions on deductions and wages, and considered whether the sums claimed were properly payable under the claimant's legal or contractual entitlements.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant was not saying he had been underpaid for holidays actually taken, but was seeking more holiday entitlement. The claimant accepted in evidence that he had suffered no deductions from holiday pay, and the tribunal found he had received the pay properly payable when on holiday.
On London Weighting Allowance, the tribunal found the claimant had not been paid the allowance by ERS before the TUPE transfer and had not shown any enforceable right against the respondent to receive it after transfer. On overtime, the tribunal found that previous or isolated payments at a premium rate did not create an entitlement to premium-rate overtime generally, and accepted the respondent's evidence that overtime was payable at the flat rate. All claims failed and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Alleged unauthorised deductions by failure to pay London Weighting Allowance. The tribunal found the claimant had not established a legal entitlement to the allowance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Alleged unauthorised deductions by failure to pay time and a half for overtime. The tribunal found no enforceable right to premium-rate overtime and accepted that the applicable rate was the flat rate. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay issue was pleaded as unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal found the claimant had been paid the correct sum when on holiday and that the complaint was in substance about entitlement to more holiday, not unpaid holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church 2000 IRLR 27, CA
- Greg May (Carpet Fitters and Contractors) Ltd v Dring 1990 ICR 188, EAT
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.