Mr Aleem Sher v London Borough of Newham — 2025

The claimant brought a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He said that after a period of sickness absence during his probation, his August 2024 payslip showed £4,924 described as "Sick Offset Retroactive" and that this had been wrongly deducted from him after his employment ended.

The tribunal considered the claim on its merits on the evidence available, which consisted of the August 2024 payslip and the claimant's contract. It found that the payslip showed the deduction, but there was no evidence, such as earlier payslips, from which it could conclude that the description or deduction was incorrect. The contract contained a sick pay policy and an overpayment clause permitting deductions for overpayments, but there was no evidence about whether or how those provisions had been applied.

The tribunal took account of the claimant's status as a litigant in person and his stated period of ill health, but found that he had not provided sufficient details or evidence to enable the respondent to answer the claim or the tribunal to conclude that an unauthorised deduction had been made. The unauthorised deduction complaint was dismissed. The respondent's costs application was also refused: although the tribunal found unreasonable conduct and breach of orders, it declined to exercise its discretion to award costs after considering the whole picture, including the claimant's financial circumstances and conduct at the hearing.