And speaking of… nope… can’t come up with a single seamless link for this one. So let’s just crack on with the case of Hudek v Brake Bros Ltd 2025 and the rights and wrongs of a lorry driver’s claim over unpaid overtime.

Mr Hudek was employed by Brake Bros Ltd as a lorry driver. His contract specified a fixed salary for working five shifts per week, with an average shift being 9.4 hours. The contract allowed for some flexibility, stating that the driver would work “such hours for each working shift as are necessary for the proper performance of [his] duties.”  The contract also included a specific overtime provision where overtime pay would only be due if Mr Hudek worked an extra full shift or a half shift (defined as 4.5 hours or more). For any additional time worked below this threshold, no overtime pay was due. Between 2021 and 2022, Mr Hudek regularly worked longer than his average shift length, often exceeding 10 hours.

Mr Hudek brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages and claimed he should be paid for the time over and above the intended shift length, arguing there was an implied contractual term entitling him to additional pay when his hours exceeded what was reasonably expected.

The ET found in Mr Hudek’s favour, holding that it was an implied term of his contract that required payment for the time worked over the intended weekly average if that time was not offset by shorter shifts. The ET concluded that Brake Bros Ltd had made unlawful deductions from his wages by not paying for the extra hours.

Blake Bros Ltd appealed the decision at the Employment Appeals Tribunal where ET’s decision was overturned. The EAT held that the contract was clear in its express terms and allowed for a degree of flexibility in working hours and emphasised that implied terms cannot override express provisions, particularly where overtime entitlement is explicitly defined.

The EAT also noted that where shift patterns routinely exceed the original expectations, the proper recourse is to amend the contract to reflect this, as had been done previously in 2014 through an addendum. The EAT rejected the argument that a new term should be implied, stating that neither the “business efficacy” test nor the “obviousness” test for implication of terms was satisfied.

This case reinforces the primacy of express contractual terms over implied obligations. Employers can build flexibility into contracts by including language that requires staff to work additional hours as necessary for the role, without this automatically giving rise to claims for additional pay.

However, when contracts include both flexible working expectations and defined overtime entitlements, it is crucial to clearly outline when and how overtime pay is triggered as this clarity helps to manage expectations and reduces the risk of potential disputes.