ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 8002488/2025 Heard on the Cloud Based Video Platform, at Edinburgh, on March 2026 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr C Jones v (in person) CCHG Limited (trading as VPZ) — 2026

The claimant was employed by CCHG Ltd as Head of Property from 6 November 2023 until 14 July 2025, when he was made redundant. He claimed payment of two alleged bonuses: first, a contractual bonus or incentive payment said to arise from his contract of employment and agreed KPIs; second, a payment said to be due under an alleged side agreement for 10% of the profit generated by CCHC Fabrefit Ltd. The tribunal recorded the claims as unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with a breach of contract complaint arising on termination also dismissed.

On the contractual bonus claim, the tribunal found that the employment contract provided only that an incentive plan and KPIs would be agreed after the probationary period, up to a maximum of 20% of annual salary. It found that the contract did not guarantee any amount, formula or timescale for a bonus, and that no entitlement could arise unless an incentive plan and KPIs were agreed, the KPIs were met, and the respondent's board approved the entitlement and amount. The tribunal found that KPIs had been discussed with the claimant's then line manager, but no separate incentive plan or bonus terms were agreed, and no board sign-off was proved.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's argument that he was entitled to a pro-rated bonus for partial achievement of KPIs. It found no evidence of any agreed sliding scale or pro rata mechanism, and recorded that the claimant accepted he had not fully achieved all the KPIs on which he relied. The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant had not proved that any contractual bonus was wages properly payable, and dismissed that unauthorised deduction complaint.

On the Fabrefit-related claim, the tribunal found that CCHC Fabrefit Ltd was a separate legal entity and was not the claimant's employer. It found the evidence insufficient to establish the identity of the alleged contracting parties or that the respondent, CCHG Ltd, had entered into an enforceable agreement to pay the claimant 10% of Fabrefit's profits. In any event, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved that Fabrefit generated a profit in the relevant accounting period; the documentary evidence before the tribunal showed a trading loss. The tribunal dismissed the second unauthorised deduction complaint and dismissed the breach of contract complaint, with no monetary award made.