Case 1600692/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Evans v Moonforge Ltd t/a Mister Window Company — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600692/2022
- Decision date
- 14 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Macdonald Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Evans was employed by Moonforge Ltd t/a Mister Window Company from 4 January 2021 until she was dismissed on 23 March 2022. The hearing was conducted on the basis of whether the sums claimed were wages and whether they were properly payable. The Claimant said the sums were commission payments; the Respondent said they were part of a discretionary bonus scheme.
The tribunal found there had been a contractual promise that the Claimant would receive a bonus of 0.5% of net sales, supplementing the written employment letter which referred to a weekly salary of £500 basic plus bonus payments when sales targets were achieved. However, when the Claimant sought £7,659.82 as accrued unpaid bonus, the tribunal did not accept her calculations. It found her table of figures unreliable, preferred the net sales figures in the bundle, and concluded that she had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the sums claimed reflected 0.5% of net sales.
A further element of the claim related to hours worked at weekends. That also failed. The Claimant accepted in oral evidence that the nature of her work was to do what was needed, her contractual basic pay was £500 per week, and there was no contractual offer of weekend work. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim for arrears of pay in full.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the dispute as a wages claim covering alleged unpaid bonus and an element said to relate to weekend hours. It found there was a contractual promise of 0.5% of net sales, but the Claimant did not prove the amount said to be due; the weekend-hours element also failed because there was no contractual offer of weekend work. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ss.13 and 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- burden of proof
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.