Mr Nathan Cook v Aqua Protec Limited — 2023

Mr Nathan Cook was employed by Aqua Protec Limited as a Business Development Manager and resigned with notice on 16 September 2022 to take effect on 9 December 2022. He claimed commission on 69 invoices, totalling £7,123.37. At the hearing, Aqua Protec accepted that £811.64 of commission was owed, and the tribunal ordered that sum to be paid. The tribunal did not deal with a separate written-particulars point because it was not understood to be pursued at the hearing.

The dispute turned on the wording of the commission clause in Mr Cook’s offer letter. The tribunal accepted that commission was calculated monthly and based on sales for which full payment was received from the client, and that no commission was payable in respect of monies not actually received. It also held that the phrase “falls due for payment after the termination of your employment” referred to the commission falling due, not the client invoice due date. On that basis, invoices in column H, where client payment had not been received by termination, did not attract commission.

For the invoices said to be “new business sales” in column I, the tribunal accepted that Mr Cook had not been given the separate definition document during induction, but found that both parties in practice relied on that definition. It concluded that the invoices were outside scope because they were linked to clients or contracts already in existence beyond the relevant period, and that Mr Cook had not proved that the commission was due because they involved new services or products. The tribunal reached the same conclusion for the invoices in column K where the client was not Mr Cook’s client, and for the invoices in column J where the invoices had been cancelled and, even if reissued, a new 30-day payment period would apply.

The result was that only the admitted £811.64 was awarded. The balance of the commission claim was dismissed.