Case 6006905/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Spiridon v Oxford Aunts Care Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006905/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Spiridon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Spiridon was employed from 29 December 2022 as an hourly care manager on a salary of £40,000. His contract required 40 hours a week during office hours and said he would not receive further remuneration for additional hours, except for the on-call service if that undertaking formed part of his role. The tribunal found that this referred to the separate live-in care on-call rota operated by The Good Care Group. He did not join that rota until 1 November 2023. Before then, the respondent expected only occasional out-of-hours contact about the hourly care service, with ad hoc extra work dealt with as overtime or time off in lieu, and there was no agreement that he would be paid the live-in rota rates of £17 per evening and £135 per weekend.
On time limits, the tribunal held that any unlawful deduction complaint was in time because there was a series of deductions continuing until the respondent's final payment on 18 March 2024. The breach of contract claim was initially out of time, but time was extended because the claimant began ACAS conciliation only a few days late after receiving erroneous ACAS advice and being unable to obtain other legal advice. The tribunal noted that the respondent had made a compromise offer in February 2024, later paid as £612 and then increased by £17 on appeal, but treated those sums as part of the parties' discussions rather than as an agreed contractual entitlement.
Both claims failed on the merits. For unlawful deduction from wages, the tribunal held that the claimant never met the conditions for payment of the live-in rota on-call rates because he was not part of that rota until November 2023, and occasional out-of-hours work did not amount to being on call. For breach of contract, the tribunal held there was no contractual entitlement to those rates before November 2023 and no breach in the respondent's timing of adding him to the rota once handover arrangements were in place. Both complaints were dismissed and no tribunal award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaint was in time because, if there had been a deduction, there was a series continuing to the respondent's final payment on 18 March 2024. It dismissed the claim on the merits because the claimant never satisfied the conditions for payment of the live-in rota on-call rates and the tribunal would not decide what a fair sum might have been. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal extended time because the claimant started ACAS conciliation only a few days late after erroneous ACAS advice and an inability to obtain other legal advice. It dismissed the claim because there was no contractual entitlement to the live-in on-call rates before November 2023 and no breach in the respondent's timing of adding him to the rota. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- series of deductions
- not reasonably practicable test
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Arora v Rockwell Automation Ltd
- Agarwal v Cardiff University
- New Century Cleaning Ltd v Church
- Kingston upon Hull CC v Schofield
- Lucy v British Airways
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.