Case 1800437/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1800437/2021
- Decision date
- 29 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant withdrew the complaint about failure to include mobile phone and car allowances in pay in lieu of notice at the start of the hearing. The tribunal also refused an application to add a holiday pay complaint, finding it was out of time and that allowing it would cause prejudice to the respondent. The remaining dispute concerned unpaid commission.
On the evidence, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had been told at interview that he would earn 15% commission on gross profit, but it held that the written contract made any commission discretionary. It found that no written commission scheme had been provided to the claimant on 6 January 2020, and that before 23 April 2020 the parties understood commission to be payable upfront under the applicable scheme. The tribunal found that the respondent changed the timing of commission payments in April 2020 because of the pandemic, and that furloughed employees' commission was treated as deferred rather than cancelled.
The tribunal held that the commission complaint was in time as a breach of contract claim, because it was outstanding on termination and was presented within three months plus early conciliation extension. It also held that, if treated as an unlawful deduction from wages complaint, it was still in time because the relevant complaint concerned the August 2020 payment. Applying the principles in Arnold v Britton and Autoclenz, the tribunal found no contractual entitlement to commission, but held that once the respondent chose to pay commission it had to exercise that discretion rationally and in good faith.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that commission depended on the claimant meeting targets, found that some withheld payments were irrational or not in good faith, and accepted the claimant's calculations for the completed deals. It also found that the MDC contract was the claimant's deal and that attributing the commission to Mr Robertshaw was not rational. The tribunal awarded the outstanding commission sums for the completed deals, less amounts already paid on some transactions, producing a total award of £5,093.82.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint about failure to include mobile phone and car allowances in pay in lieu of notice; withdrawn by the claimant at the start of the hearing. The judgment records it as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Commission claim succeeded. The tribunal also considered limitation under the unlawful deduction from wages regime, but held the matter could be treated as a breach of contract claim and that the respondent breached its obligation to exercise discretion rationally and in good faith. | Upheld | — | £5,094 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,094
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonable practicability
- objective construction of contract
- Arnold v Britton
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Clark v BET
- Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald
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.