Case 3321615/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Hodgkin - Counsel For the v Mr Large - Counsel — 2018
- Case reference
- 3321615/2019
- Decision date
- 20 March 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Hodgkin - Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Brice brought two claims for unauthorised deduction from wages: one for unpaid expenses and one for unpaid commission. The expenses element was dismissed by consent after the parties reached agreement during the hearing. The remaining issue was how commission was to be calculated under Annexe A to the claimant's contract.
The tribunal preferred the respondent's construction of Annexe A. It found that "Sales Income" was a defined term meaning gross sales margin, not gross sales without deduction. The tribunal said the document was poorly drafted, but held that the wording and commercial context showed the parties intended commission to be calculated on margin, not on gross sales per se, and that the £60,000 on-target commission figure had to be read in that context.
On the deductions question, the tribunal held that the £2.5% NHS procurement charge was not to be deducted when calculating gross margin because, on the respondent's own spreadsheet, it was deducted later to produce net margin. It also held that the £400 per day cost base applied across all 384.75 days, and that the direct cost of third-party re-sale licences fell to be deducted in calculating gross sales margin. On that basis the commission claim was partly upheld and the tribunal ordered payment of £1,195.39, although the reasons section contains one inconsistent figure of £1,159.39 in paragraphs 17 and 35.2.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid expenses was dismissed by consent of the parties after agreement was reached at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unpaid commission claim was partly upheld. The tribunal held that commission was payable on gross sales margin rather than gross sales, and ordered payment of £1,195.39. The reasons section also contains an apparent typo at paragraphs 17 and 35.2 referring to £1,159.39, but the calculation in paragraph 14 and the formal order state £1,195.39. | Upheld | — | £1,195 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,195
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13(3) Employment Rights Act 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.