u : Jessica Hardwick v Acidmark Ltd — 2023

The tribunal applied the balance of probabilities standard and preferred the evidence of David Law where there was a conflict with the claimant's evidence. It found that the claimant was employed as Chief Marketing Officer from 1 September 2020 until 31 May 2022 under a contract that provided for commission, a crowdfunding bonus, and notice provisions, and that the claim before the tribunal was a breach of contract complaint concerning commission, crowdfunding bonus, notice pay and legal fees.

On commission, the tribunal found that the 23 March 2022 email only proposed removing the cap and time limit in clause 4.6(c), and that changing commission from net income to goods sold was still under discussion. It found there was no verbal agreement to change the basis of commission, there was no net income in the relevant period, and therefore no commission fell due.

On the crowdfunding bonus, the tribunal found there had been a crowdfunding raise of £218,000 in July 2021 and marketing costs directly attributable to the raise of £97,000. On that basis, the contract called for a bonus of £9,300, and the claimant had in fact been paid £12,500. The tribunal therefore held that there had been no failure to pay bonus. On legal fees, it found there was no express or implied agreement that the respondent would meet the claimant's fees if a settlement agreement was not reached, so that aspect of the claim also failed.

On notice pay, the tribunal found that the contract ended on 31 May 2022 by mutual agreement. It found that the claimant did not resign and was not dismissed, and so there was no entitlement to notice pay or pay in lieu of notice. The tribunal accordingly dismissed the breach of contract complaint in its entirety.