Hughes v The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd [2010] UKEAT 0173_10_2211 (22 November 2010)

Hughes v The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd [2010] UKEAT 0173_10_2211 (22 November 2010)

The claimant was afforded an equivalent period of compensatory rest during his shifts, as he could take breaks when he chose, restart breaks if interrupted, and was paid for his shifts. The employer met the requirements of regulation 24(a) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Even if this was incorrect, the Employment Tribunal's finding that regulation 24(b) was satisfied was unimpeachable.

Citation
[2010] UKEAT 0173_10_2211
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal After Remit
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Working Time Regulations, Rest Breaks, Compensatory Rest, Health and Safety at Work
Employment Law Working Time Regulations Rest Breaks Compensatory Rest Health and Safety at Work

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal After Remit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant received an equivalent period of compensatory rest under regulation 24(a) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
  2. 2 Whether it was not possible for objective reasons to grant such compensatory rest under regulation 24(b)
  3. 3 Whether the employer granted appropriate protection if compensatory rest was not possible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was afforded an equivalent period of compensatory rest during his shifts, as he could take breaks when he chose, restart breaks if interrupted, and was paid for his shifts. The employer met the requirements of regulation 24(a) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Even if this was incorrect, the Employment Tribunal's finding that regulation 24(b) was satisfied was unimpeachable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The respondents have not breached the obligations they owe to the claimant under paragraph 24 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
  • The claimant's claim for a declaration under those regulations and compensation is dismissed.