Case 2218789/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Represented himself For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2218789/2024
- Decision date
- 16 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Represented himself For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Stephen Moody, brought a claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for commission said to be due on the LG Energy deal. The tribunal found that the relevant entitlement depended on the termination letter of 26 May 2023, which stated that after garden leave the claimant could receive 50% commission on deals for which he remained 'actively involved' during the garden leave period. The parties agreed that the deal closed in September 2023 and that, had commission been due, it would have been paid in October 2023.
On time limits, the tribunal found that the primary limitation period expired on 29 January 2024. It accepted that the claimant did not know the deal had closed until he saw a case study on 26 January 2024 and obtained confirmation from the respondent on 29 January 2024, so it was not reasonably practicable for him to present the claim before the primary deadline. However, the tribunal held that the further delay was not reasonable. It found that the claimant knew the respondent's position by 2 February 2024, had considered legal advice by 30 January 2024, notified ACAS on 15 February 2024, received the certificate on 21 March 2024, and did not present the claim until 22 April 2024. For that reason, the claim was dismissed as out of time.
The tribunal also dealt with the substantive issue and found that, even if the claim had been in time, the claimant was not entitled to commission on the LG Energy deal. It held that 'active involvement' required more than handover notes and brief emails checking whether the deal had closed. The claimant could not identify any concrete advice, discussions, or actions on the LG Energy deal during garden leave, did not communicate with the client or with the respondent's lead on the deal, and was not involved in the trip to Korea or the work done by the respondent's team. The tribunal therefore found that he had not been 'actively involved' in the deal during the garden leave period and was not entitled to commission after closure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for commission on the LG Energy deal. The tribunal held the claim was out of time and, in any event, the claimant was not entitled to commission because he was not 'actively involved' during garden leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services 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.