Case 1806116/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Adrian Weglarz v The Best Solutions Hull Limited Heard: by CVP on 6 and 7 August 2025 and, in chambers, on 22 September 2025 — 2025
- Case reference
- 1806116/2024
- Decision date
- 7 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Adrian Weglarz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ayre, sitting alone, dismissed all of the claimant's remaining complaints. The claims under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ERA sections 44(1)(b) and 45A had previously been withdrawn. The claim of detriment under sections 44 and 48 ERA 1996 (health and safety) was not well-founded.
On the unauthorised deductions claim, the Judge found that there was no agreement to pay overtime for hours worked Monday to Friday (the contract only provided overtime for weekends and bank holidays). The claimant's £39,000 annual salary covered all his weekday hours, including those above 45 per week. Even on the maximum 62.52 hours/week that the claimant calculated, the gross weekly pay equated to £11.99/hour - in excess of the £10.42 National Minimum Wage. The single weekend overtime shift on 11 February 2024 had been paid for separately.
On itemised pay statements, the respondent had complied with section 8 ERA 1996; hours need only be shown on a payslip where pay varies by reference to time worked, and the relevant overtime payslip did include those hours. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claims under sections 44(1)(b) and 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Detriment claim under sections 44 and 48 ERA 1996 (health and safety) not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deduction from wages (overtime alleged in excess of 45 hours/week) not well-founded; salary covered all weekday hours. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim of failure to provide itemised pay statements (s.8 ERA 1996) not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- sections 44 and 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.