Case 6002739/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Index Care Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002739/2024
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin RESERVED
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant claimed payment for additional hours she said she had worked above her contractual weekly hours. The tribunal found that the signed written terms provided for 7.5 hours per week, with additional hours only when authorised and required by business need.
The tribunal found there was no agreement that the respondent would pay the claimant in money for the additional hours claimed, and that any agreement to paid additional hours would have had to be made before the hours were worked. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the working arrangement was intended to balance additional hours with paid time off over the year.
The tribunal also found Mr Phillips' evidence more convincing than the claimant's on reliability issues. In all the circumstances, the claimant's claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes the claim as breach of contract for unpaid additional hours. The gov.uk listing categories refer to unlawful deduction from wages and Working Time Regulations, but those labels are not used as the adjudicated claim in the reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- offer, consideration, acceptance and intention to create legal relations
- past consideration is not consideration
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.