President of EAT overturns implication of overtime provisions in lorry driver contracts
On 29.4.25 the Employment Appeal Tribunal handed down judgment in Brake Bros Ltd v Hudek [2025] EAT 53, allowing Brake Bros’ appeal.
Agreeing with the position advocated by Thomas Cordrey on behalf of the Appellant, the President of the EAT, Lord Fairley, overturned the first instance decision in this case which concerned the contracts of lorry drivers employed by the food distribution company, Brake Bros. The contracts had stated a requirement to perform 5 shifts a week, with an intended average shift length of 9.4 hours per shift. For a period of time that had regularly been exceeded and the ET judge had implied a term that the excess hours had to be remunerated in addition to the agreed annual salary.
Accepting the submissions of the Appellant, Lord Fairley considered that this had impermissibly elevated the intended hours – which were expressly subject to the requirement to work such hours as were necessary for the performance of the shift’s duties – to a contractual obligation. In doing so he found that the court had wrongly cut across the express terms of the contract and implied a term where it was not in any event warranted by the familiar business efficacy and officious bystander tests.
The decision is likely to have wider relevance to the haulage industry where some variability in hours is inherent in the role, and where contractual overtime is not always explicitly provided for.
Thomas Cordrey appeared for Brake Bros Limited.
Back to News
