Case 6021461/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bateman v CMS Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021461/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bateman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an account manager employed by the respondent from 1 November 2023 until 31 October 2024, brought claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract following the termination of his employment. The hearing before Employment Judge Phil Allen (sitting alone) took place by CVP on 14 October 2025, with the claimant representing himself and the respondent represented by counsel. The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from three witnesses for the respondent: Miss Darcy Coop (managing director), Mr Andrew Coop (chief executive), and Mrs Josie Cross (executive assistant).
On the unauthorised deduction claim, the Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages on 31 October 2024, including a shortfall of £142.75 and £1,848.89 in commission to which the claimant was contractually due. A commission policy document relied upon by the respondent had not been disclosed in the bundle and had only been drafted after the claimant's employment had largely run its course; it did not state that commission would only be paid once an invoice had been raised. The Tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,991.64.
On the breach of contract claim, the Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the correct payment in lieu of notice. The contractual PILON clause defined the salary to be paid as that "as at the date of termination", which the Tribunal interpreted as excluding any agreed post-termination pay increases. PILON was therefore due at £40,000 per annum, not £45,000 as the claimant contended. Applying the claimant's calculation method (which the respondent did not effectively counter with evidence or a counter-schedule), the Tribunal awarded damages of £1,057.69, being the shortfall between £6,666.67 due and £5,608.98 already paid.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the respondent in breach of contract by failing to pay the correct payment in lieu of notice. Damages awarded in the gross sum of £1,057.69, calculated as the shortfall between two months' pay at £40,000 per annum (£6,666.67) and the £5,608.98 already paid. The claimant's argument that PILON should be at £45,000 per annum was not accepted. | Upheld | — | £1,058 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages on 31 October 2024. The respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,991.64, comprising £142.75 in deductions made from the 31 October 2024 pay and £1,848.89 in commission the claimant was due to have received. | Upheld | — | £1,992 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,049
- across all upheld claims
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.