Case 1803036/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Epstein (solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803036/2023
- Decision date
- 21 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jaleel Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Epstein (solicitor) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant joined the respondent on 13 February 2017 as a Business Development Manager for the Instrumentation and Monitoring Division. The tribunal found that the offer documents and the attached contract were silent on commission, but a letter of 13 March 2017 confirmed commission at 1% of turnover generated by Instrumentation and stated that it did not form part of the contract of employment and could be changed at any time. On that evidence, and taking account of the subsequent commission documents, the tribunal found that there was no express contractual right to the 1% commission and no implied term arising from custom and practice, business efficacy, or the officious bystander test.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he had a contractual right to a 1% commission and found no repudiatory breach or breach of trust and confidence, so the unfair dismissal claim failed. The constructive dismissal issues were not made out. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Because the commission arrangements were found to be non-contractual and discretionary, the alleged shortfalls did not amount to unauthorised deductions from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The same alleged entitlement to contractual commission failed, so the breach of contract claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The respondent accepted that 5 days' holiday pay was owed in the sum of £1,200, to be paid by 5pm on 10 November 2023, and the claimant withdrew the further holiday pay claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,200
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Arnold v Britton
- Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd
- Park Cakes Ltd v Shumba
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI SA
- Courtaulds Northern Textiles Ltd v Andrew
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
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.