In person For v Mr G Hine, Solicitor — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent insurance brokerage from 14 January 2020 until his resignation on 31 August 2020. His contract provided for basic salary plus 50% of earned commission on new business that he introduced and placed. The tribunal was asked to decide the meaning of the commission clause, including whether “new business” was limited to new clients, what counted as “introduce”, and whether the claimant could recover any share of fees charged in lieu of commission.

The tribunal found that “new business” was not limited to a new client and could include a new policy or product sold to an existing client. It also found that “introduce” meant the claimant had to be the source of the business. On that basis, the claimant introduced business where he initiated the sale himself, including cold-calling or cross-selling to an existing client, but not where he was asked or directed by the respondent to contact a client. The tribunal also held that fees charged in lieu of commission were distinct from commission, so the claimant had no contractual entitlement to a share of those fees.

Applying those findings to the individual items, the tribunal rejected the claims for Alarm Communications, Ceren Construction, LJO Construction, Esembe, and Jon Bird. Alarm Communications involved fees rather than commission, so nothing was payable. Ceren, LJO, Esembe, and Jon Bird were found not to have been introduced by the claimant in the contractual sense, or were not new business for commission purposes in the case of Jon Bird. Those items therefore did not give rise to unpaid commission.

The claims succeeded only for Sanjay Karia and Frontline Hygiene. The tribunal found those were new business, that the claimant introduced and placed the policies, and that commission of £8.33 and £22.73 respectively was owed. It therefore held that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from wages and also breached the contract by not paying those sums. Because the claimant had not claimed any additional loss, the tribunal made no separate award for breach of contract and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £31.06 in respect of the claims.