Case 2201838/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. E. Stanley v Pello Capital Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201838/2023
- Decision date
- 23 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. E. Stanley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Stanley worked for Pello Capital Ltd as a stockbroker from 3 December 2018. His basic salary increased from £25,000 to £30,000 and then to £35,000 from 1 September 2022. Commission was paid quarterly in arrears and, by the August 2022 confirmation letter, was to be 40% of net commission generated above cover, with cover calculated at 2.5 times salary. After a redundancy notice dated 18 November 2022, he received a commission calculation on 29 November 2022 showing £11,237.56 due for Q3 plus November, including £7,801.46 for August to October and £3,436.10 for November.
As against the first respondent, the tribunal held that the commission arrangement was not truly discretionary in the way suggested, or alternatively that any discretion had already been exercised in the claimant's favour when the 29 November 2022 calculation was issued. It found that the failure to pay £11,237.56 was a breach of contract and also that the sum was properly payable as wages. The tribunal also said that, if the matter were treated as an unauthorised deduction complaint, it was one day out of time because the relevant payment date was 30 November 2022 and ACAS early conciliation began on 1 March 2023.
As against the second respondent, the tribunal considered the insolvency payment calculation under section 184 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant's remuneration varied with the amount of work done within section 221(3), so commission had to be included in the calculation of a week's pay. Using the declared commission figure of £11,237.56 over 15 weeks, the tribunal apportioned commission at £749.17 per week. It declared that the claimant's pay included commission at that rate for the statutory calculation, but did not determine a final monetary shortfall and allowed for a further hearing if the revised calculation remained disputed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The first respondent was held liable for unpaid commission for August to October 2022, with the tribunal also treating the November calculation as contractual once issued; the award was £11,237.56. | Upheld | — | £11,238 |
| Other | The tribunal declared that, for section 184 insolvency calculations, the claimant's pay included commission at an apportioned rate of £749.17 per week. It did not fix a final shortfall figure against the second respondent and said the claimant could apply for a further hearing if the revised calculation remained in dispute. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said the commission was properly payable, but if the complaint was pursued as an unauthorised deduction claim it was one day out of time because the relevant payment date was 30 November 2022 and ACAS early conciliation did not begin until 1 March 2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,238
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.27(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.82 ERA 1996
- s.184 ERA 1996
- s.221 ERA 1996
- s.229(2) ERA 1996
- Small v Boots Co plc
- Brogan v Investec plc
- Coors Breweries Ltd v Adcock
- Farrell Matthews and Weir v Harrison
- Nouradian v Tradition Securities and Futures
- Weevsmay v Kings
- Evans v Malley Organisation Ltd
- Adshead and others v May Gurney Ltd
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.