Cases2302764/2025

Claimant v HHGL Limited t/a Homebase (in administration)

5 September 2025Before Employment Judge M Da CostaLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Redundancy Payfailed

The tribunal found that the claimants' remuneration fell under section 221(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because commission payments were results-based, not linked to the amount of work done. Commission could not be included in the week's pay calculation for redundancy purposes, which is limited to basic contractual salary under section 221(2).

Breach of Contractfailed

The tribunal found that notice pay calculation must also be based on section 221(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, excluding commission. The claimants were not entitled to notice pay calculated on average total remuneration including commission, only on their basic contractual wage.

Facts

Ms Rogers and 7 other kitchen designers were made redundant when Homebase entered administration in November 2024. They were paid basic salary plus results-based commission. The Insolvency Service calculated their redundancy payments and notice pay using only their basic salary, excluding commission. The claimants argued that their average total earnings (basic plus commission) should have been used to calculate a week's pay, as commission formed a substantial part of their regular wages.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held that the claimants' commission was results-based, not linked to the amount of work done. Therefore, under section 221(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, only their basic contractual salary could be used to calculate a week's pay for redundancy and notice pay purposes. The enhanced protection for commission that applies to holiday pay under EU law and the Working Time Regulations does not extend to redundancy or notice pay calculations.

Practical note

Results-based commission schemes, even where commission forms the majority of earnings, fall under section 221(2) ERA 1996 and cannot be included in redundancy or notice pay calculations, distinguishing them from productivity-based or piecework schemes under section 221(3).

Legal authorities cited

Adshead v May Gurney Ltd UKEAT/0150/06Evans v Malley Organisation [2003] IRLR 156Lock v British Gas Trading Ltd [2017] ICR 1

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.135Working Time Regulations 1998 reg.16ERA 1996 s.162ERA 1996 s.166ERA 1996 s.167ERA 1996 s.182ERA 1996 s.184ERA 1996 s.221

Case details

Case number
2302764/2025
Decision date
5 September 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
No

Employment details

Role
Kitchen designer
Salary band
£40,000–£50,000

Claimant representation

Represented
No