Case 2302677/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Stevenson v Orbit Energy Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302677/2019
- Decision date
- 6 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
- Venue
- London South Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Stevenson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Stevenson was employed by Orbit Energy Ltd as an Area Sales Manager from 29 October 2018 until she resigned on 18 March 2019. Her claim alleged outstanding commission payments and an increase in basic salary. The tribunal recorded that her offer letter and contract provided for a basic salary of £40,000, a possible increase to £45,000 if she successfully implemented an Orbit Energy office consisting of 20 sales agents together with ongoing and continued achievement of sales performance targets, and commission of £5 per fuel for each successful customer that commenced supply.
The tribunal found that the respondent’s commission policy paid commission only on sales that successfully completed, with no commission where verification failed or where incorrect customer information meant the sale did not go live. It accepted the respondent’s evidence that sales could fail for those reasons and that no commission was paid on failed sales. On the evidence before it, the claimant was not able to identify unpaid sales commissions with sufficient proof, and the tribunal held she had not discharged the burden of proving any unpaid commission was properly due.
On the salary increase issue, the tribunal found that the claimant had not established that her office ever had 20 or more active sales agents at the end of any calendar month, and that she had not proved ongoing and continued achievement of the relevant sales targets. It also noted that the contract provided for salary review annually around 1 July, and her employment ended before July 2019. The tribunal therefore held that the conditions for the increase to £45,000 were not met.
Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown that she had been paid less than wages properly payable to her. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was therefore unsuccessful and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerned alleged underpayment of commission and an asserted salary increase from £40,000 to £45,000. The tribunal found the claimant had not proved entitlement to either sum. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 ERA 1996
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.