Claimant v Croner Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was only entitled to 1 week's notice under the contract as he remained in his probationary period, which had never been formally confirmed as passed. This was consistent with statutory minimum notice under ERA 1996 s.86 for an employee with less than 2 years' service. He was paid the 1 week's notice he was owed.
The claimant's claim for unpaid commission of approximately £2,500 failed because the contract contained a clear condition precedent requiring the employee to be in employment on the last day of the month when commission became payable. As the claimant was dismissed on 31 March 2025, he did not meet the condition for commission that would have been payable in April 2025, so no legal entitlement to that commission arose.
The claimant's claim for consequential financial losses of approximately £4,750 for mortgage arrears failed because the tribunal found the respondent had paid everything contractually and statutorily owed to the claimant. Since there was no breach in respect of notice pay or commission, there could be no consequential losses.
Facts
Mr Earlam was employed as a business manager from 5 February 2024 to 31 March 2025 on a salary of £30,000 with performance-related commission. He was dismissed during his probationary period, which had never been formally confirmed as passed. He claimed approximately £1,500 for shortfall in notice pay, £2,500 for unpaid commission that would have been payable in April 2025, and approximately £4,750 for consequential mortgage arrears. The respondent denied the claims based on contractual terms requiring employees to be in employment on the last day of the month when commission became payable, and that probationary employees were only entitled to 1 week's notice.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The contract contained a clear condition precedent that commission only became payable if the employee was still employed on the last day of the month when it became due. Since the claimant left on 31 March 2025, he did not satisfy the condition for April 2025 commission. The tribunal also found he was only entitled to 1 week's notice as he remained in his probationary period (never formally ended), which met both contractual and statutory minimum requirements under ERA 1996 s.86. The consequential loss claim failed as there was no underlying breach.
Practical note
Employment contracts can lawfully include condition precedents requiring employees to remain in employment on the date commission becomes payable, and probationary periods continue until formally confirmed as passed in writing where the contract so provides.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6020518/2025
- Decision date
- 3 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Business Manager
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No