Mr Neil Williamson v PTS Services Group Ltd — 2026

The tribunal heard a single claim by Mr Neil Williamson for breach of contract against PTS Services Group Ltd. The dispute was whether the claimant had been given, and was bound by, a later written contract said to make bonus discretionary, or whether the employment contract had been formed by the 6 October 2023 offer letter and email acceptance, which set out a monthly bonus scheme without any statement that bonus was discretionary.

Employment Judge A Kemp preferred the claimant’s evidence that the written contract relied on by the respondent had not been issued to him. The judge relied on the terms of the offer letter, the absence of any separate follow-up sending the full terms and conditions, the claimant’s evidence that he would have queried a discretionary bonus term if it had been presented, and the inconsistencies in the respondent’s evidence about when the contract was given and whether it was chased up for signature. The judge also noted that bonus payments made during employment were recorded simply as “bonus” on payslips and were not accompanied by any written explanation of how they were calculated.

The tribunal found that the offer of 6 October 2023 was sufficient to conclude a contract of employment with a non-discretionary bonus structure, and that the respondent had not established that the later written contract superseded it. The claimant had brought in work for the respondent, including contracts for Helix, Sulzer, Fugro, and other companies, and the tribunal found that the respondent had not paid any bonus for work carried out in 2025. On that basis, the first issue was answered in the claimant’s favour.

On remedy, the tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that the sum due under the bonus scheme was £6,000. The respondent did not produce written evidence of the relevant revenue or profit figures, and its oral evidence on those matters was described as very general. The tribunal inferred from the absence of documentary challenge and the absence of cross-examination on the amount claimed that the revenues earned were sufficient to support the £6,000 figure. Judgment was therefore entered for £6,000 gross, with liberty for the respondent to make any required deductions for tax and employee National Insurance before payment.