Case 1401258/2025 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Ms R Morgan (counsel) — 2026
- Case reference
- 1401258/2025
- Decision date
- 3 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 named- IN PERSON FOR THE
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Head Chef from 15 November 2023 with annualised contractual hours of 1,740 (37.5 hours per week average) and an overtime rate of £20.11 per hour requiring express prior management approval. He claimed unpaid overtime as unlawful deduction from wages and/or breach of contract. Earlier public interest disclosure detriment claims had been withdrawn.
Employment Judge Cadney, sitting alone at Bristol, accepted the respondent's Planday system records of 1,884.63 hours as the accurate record of hours worked, finding the claimant's higher figures unsupported. On the contested authorisation point, the Judge concluded that hours which were authorised at the time and which subsequently exceeded annualised contractual hours gave rise to an entitlement to overtime, given the impracticality of seeking advance approval before annual hours could be calculated.
The Tribunal upheld the claim limited to the difference between 1,884.63 and 1,740 hours, ordering payment of £2,908.50 (144.63 hours x £20.11). PDF text truncated from 15,534 characters; only minor mid-section omitted.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £2,909 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,909
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.