Case 1800784/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Murrin v Telecom Service Centre Ltd T/a Webhelp — 2022

Case reference: 1800784/2022
Decision date: 30 May 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
Venue: Leeds

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Murrin

Respondent

Telecom Service Centre Ltd T/a Webhelp

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant started work on 19 July 2021 as a Contact Centre Associate on the Vodafone campaign and resigned on 3 February 2022. The tribunal noted that the contract said Scottish law governed the employment contract, but no jurisdiction objection was taken, and the judge treated the England and Wales tribunal as able to determine the breach of contract claim. The claimant said he had been led to expect a bonus, and that a bonus scheme applied when he joined.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Claim concerned around £600 said to be payable as an October 2021 bonus. The tribunal held the bonus scheme was discretionary and variable under the Commission Notes, and that no contractual entitlement arose on the facts found.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The reasons held that the October 2021 bonus/commission was not properly payable, so there was no unauthorised deduction under s.13 ERA 1996. The judgment also referred separately to a December 2021 deduction issue and said a further decision would follow after case management orders.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.