Case 3200548/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Kirby v Playfix Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200548/2022
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dias-Patel Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Kirby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Kirby was employed by Playfix Limited as a Business Operations Manager from 1 October 2020 to 10 November 2021. The tribunal accepted his evidence that, after he began using his own car for business travel, he and Mr Johnson agreed mileage would be reimbursed at 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25p per mile thereafter. That agreement became an express term of the relationship, and the tribunal said mileage claims for journeys solely between home and the usual office were excluded from the calculation.
On commission, the tribunal applied ordinary contractual interpretation principles and held that the policy promising 5% of all new business attributable to Mr Kirby was not limited to business from new clients only. It relied on the wording of the commission policy, the absence of any express restriction to new clients, the contrast with a separate bonus policy that did use that language, and Mr Johnson's comment that Mr Kirby would have reached his first quarter target if he brought in £70,000 from TGOGC. On that basis, commission covered business attributable to him from existing clients as well as new clients.
The tribunal also held that commission remained payable after termination where entitlement had accrued during employment but payment was due later under the contractual timetable. It therefore upheld the breach of contract claim on both mileage and commission. The judgment did not quantify the final sums: it directed that mileage be calculated from the claimant's schedule of loss less home-to-office journeys, and that commission be calculated from the bundle figures less only the items specifically queried by the respondent, with a further hearing to be listed if the parties could not agree the figures.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The reserved judgment's formal result is expressed as breach of contract. The reasons address mileage expenses and commission under the contract; although the ET1 also mentioned unlawful deduction of wages, no separate statutory finding is set out in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Arnold v Britton
- Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes 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.