Case 2500891/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Davison v Reveles Energy Ltd (formerly The Energy Checking Company Ltd) (In Administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500891/2021
- Decision date
- 7 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Davison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Newcastle Hearing Centre by CVP on 2 March 2022 before Employment Judge Morris sitting alone. The respondent, Reveles Energy Ltd (formerly The Energy Checking Company Ltd) (In Administration), had no representation because the response had been struck out. The tribunal found Mr C Davison’s complaint under section 111 ERA 1996 well-founded: it accepted that he had terminated the contract in circumstances entitling him to do so without notice under section 95(1)(c), and that his dismissal was unfair contrary to section 94 by reference to section 98.
The tribunal awarded £3,264 in respect of the unfair dismissal claim, consisting only of a basic award and no compensatory award. It also recorded a monetary complaint about unpaid commission said to be due on 1 October 2018 (£1,985.64), 1 October 2019 (£1,976.82), 1 May 2020 (£19,660.68 after a £4,000 payment on account against an original £23,660.68), and December 2020 (£3,472.30).
On the statutory deductions complaint, the tribunal held that section 13(2) ERA 1996 prevented it from considering the claim because the last commission payment should have been made in December 2020 and the claim was not presented until 5 June 2021. In the alternative breach of contract claim, the tribunal found the claim well-founded and ordered payment of a net sum, subject to the £25,000 jurisdictional cap in article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and to deductions for income tax and employee national insurance contributions, from the gross total commission figure of £27,095.44.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint under section 111 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had terminated the contract in circumstances entitling him to do so without notice under section 95(1)(c), and held that the dismissal was unfair contrary to section 94 by reference to section 98. The award was £3,264, consisting of a basic award only; no compensatory award was made. | Upheld | — | £3,264 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Commission complaint based on payments said to be due on 1 October 2018 (£1,985.64), 1 October 2019 (£1,976.82), 1 May 2020 (£19,660.68 after a £4,000 payment on account against an original £23,660.68), and December 2020 (£3,472.30). The tribunal held that section 13(2) ERA 1996 prevented it from considering the complaint because the last payment should have been made in December 2020 and the ET1 was not presented until 5 June 2021. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Alternative claim for unpaid commission. The tribunal found it well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay such sum, up to the £25,000 jurisdictional cap in article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, as would represent the net commission due after deduction of income tax and employee national insurance contributions from the gross total of £27,095.44. The judgment did not state the final net figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 111 ERA 1996
- section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- section 94 ERA 1996
- section 98 ERA 1996
- section 13(2) ERA 1996
- article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.