Brake Bros Ltd v S Hudek

Brake Bros Ltd v S Hudek

The contract, properly construed, entitled the claimant only to his basic salary for working 5 shifts per week of variable length. Neither business efficacy nor the unexpressed intention of the parties justified the implication of a term requiring payment for hours worked in excess of intended normal working hours except where express overtime provisions were engaged.

Parties
Appellant: Brake Bros Ltd; Respondent: Mr S Hudek
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Overtime Pay, Wages, Business Efficacy, Contract Construction
Employment Law Contract Law Implied Terms Overtime Pay Wages Business Efficacy Contract Construction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brake Bros Ltd

Appellant

Mr S Hudek

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sums were 'properly due' as wages under the contract
  2. 2 Whether a term should be implied requiring payment for hours worked in excess of intended normal working hours

Ratio Decidendi

The contract, properly construed, entitled the claimant only to his basic salary for working 5 shifts per week of variable length. Neither business efficacy nor the unexpressed intention of the parties justified the implication of a term requiring payment for hours worked in excess of intended normal working hours except where express overtime provisions were engaged.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; claim dismissed

Orders

  • Employment tribunal judgment of 22 January 2024 set aside
  • Claim dismissed