MISS B ALBAY v Ice Data Services Europe Limited — 2021

The claimant, an Account Director, brought claims about commission calculations for 2017 and 2018 under the respondent's revenue incentive arrangements. The tribunal found that her 2017 plan set a pro-rated revenue incentive target of £17,500, but did not specify any overachievement payment, and it accepted the respondent's explanation that she was paid the full 100% revenue incentive for that year in any event. It therefore held that she had suffered no loss of commission in 2017 and that her complaint about the underlying revenue figures did not affect the legal outcome.

For 2018, the claimant's plan set a revenue target incentive of £35,000 and provided for overachievement at 1.6% for each 1% above target. The tribunal spent considerable time on the spreadsheet evidence and the claimant's objections to the sales data, including her examples from ADVFN and Schroeder's, but it accepted the respondent's analysis that the relevant figures were based on revenue received rather than contract values or invoices. It found that the claimant had not shown the calculations to be wrong and accepted the respondent's calculation that she achieved 99% of target.

Although the respondent paid the claimant as if she had achieved 100% of target in 2018, the tribunal found that she had not in fact achieved over 100% and therefore had no entitlement to overachievement commission. It also held that the question of how revenue should be attributed across accounts was a technical matter for the respondent's accounting processes and not something the tribunal could rework on the evidence before it. The claims for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract were dismissed. The tribunal also dismissed the respondent's Rule 50 application to redact client names.