Case 1801482/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Oakley v LEBC Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801482/2020
- Decision date
- 29 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Oakley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Oakley claimed that LEBC Group Limited had breached the contractually incorporated Pay & Reward Scheme by failing to pay him a bonus for the financial year ending 30 September 2019. The tribunal accepted that the scheme formed part of his contract and that, on the face of the formula, the maximum bonus would have been £7,921, with £3,960 as the financial element, £1,960 as the KPI element and £1,960 as the discretionary element.
The main issue was whether the respondent could reduce the bonus because of the loss caused by the failed 2017 transfer in relation to Mr N. The tribunal found that the original failure was an administrative error, but also found that, given the claimant's role as TRW project manager, his ongoing relationship with Mr N, and the level of diligence reasonably expected of someone in his position, he should have checked that the transfer had taken place and would then have discovered the error in time for it to be rectified.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the compensation payment of £46,507.07 made to Mr N was a deduction attributable to the claimant within paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9 of the scheme rules. It therefore reduced the income generated figure by that amount and concluded that the claimant did not reach the threshold for any bonus at all. In the alternative, the tribunal held that the respondent was contractually entitled not to pay the discretionary element because it was discretionary and because the respondent was not in a position to pay it in light of its financial position.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that the compliance scorecard provisions reduced the bonus to zero, finding that there was insufficient evidence of any relevant compliance scorecard score or prior compliance treatment of Mr N's complaint. It also found, in the alternative, that any bonus payable would have been reduced by one third of the outstanding debtor figure of £12,404, namely £4,134.66. The claim for breach of contract was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claimant alleged contractual entitlement to a bonus of £7,921 under the LEBC Pay & Reward Scheme. Tribunal held the Respondent was entitled to reduce the income generated figure by £46,507.07 attributed to the Claimant, so no bonus was payable. It also held the discretionary element need not be paid; compliance scorecard reduction was not made out; and debtor reduction would only have applied alternatively. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.