In person For v In person. — 2023

The claimant worked as a sales representative for Bravo London Limited from 1 December 2020 until summary dismissal on 23 September 2022. The tribunal treated the notice-pay complaint as a wrongful dismissal claim, noted that the claimant did not have two years' service, and asked whether his conduct was so serious as to amount to a repudiatory breach of contract. It found that the claimant had proposed opening a separate company, House of Joinery Ltd, that the respondent had declined the arrangement, and that he nevertheless registered the company on 3 September 2022.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to conclude that the claimant had breached the contract, including the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and that summary dismissal was justified. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore failed and notice pay was not recoverable.

The unlawful deduction claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was paid commission on sales and examined the respondent's attempts to recover commission already paid or to withhold commission on later orders. It held that the clause permitting deductions from future commissions after refunds or returns had to be operated within a reasonable timeframe, and that the respondent's delay meant it could not later claw back the commissions on the Hillhouse, Dariusz, Jekaterina and Keating orders.

The tribunal also held that the commissions withheld on the Gaysha and Studio Blair orders were properly payable. It found that the respondent had not quantified the alleged losses and had instead withheld the claimant's commission, which was not justified on the facts found. The operative orders required gross payments of £2,494 and £2,795, and the reasons section later calculated net repayment figures of £2,030.92 for recovered commissions and £2,235 for withheld commissions. Interest was stated to accrue at 8% if payment was not made within 14 days.