Cases3302628/2024

Claimant v Jamie Briggs Removals and Storage Ltd

25 March 2025Before Employment Judge T.R. SmithWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found that the claimant had received all bonus payments properly due to her. The tribunal accepted the final accounts submitted to HMRC showing the businesses made a combined loss of £33,839 against budget, meaning no bonus was payable for FY 2022-2023. The claimant had already received £22,000 which exceeded what was due. No unlawful deduction occurred.

Breach of Contractfailed

The tribunal found that the claimant had received all bonus and notice payments due under her contract. The claimant was not entitled to bonus for Q2 FY 2023-2024 as this accrued after termination. The claimant had agreed to accept £22,000 in full settlement of bonus disputes. No breach of contract occurred.

Facts

The claimant was employed as Managing Director of a removals and storage company from February 2022 to October 2023. She claimed unpaid commission/bonus under an uncapped bonus scheme linked to net profit. She was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice. The claimant disputed the profit calculations provided by the respondent and claimed she was owed substantial bonuses for FY 2022-2023 and Q1 and Q2 of FY 2023-2024. She had previously accepted £22,000 as a bonus payment.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that based on the final accounts submitted to HMRC, the businesses made a combined loss against budget, meaning no bonus was payable. The claimant had already received £22,000 which exceeded what was due, and had agreed to accept this sum in full settlement. The tribunal also found that bonus for Q2 FY 2023-2024 accrued after termination and was not payable as wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Practical note

Payments in lieu of notice do not constitute wages for the purposes of unlawful deduction claims, and profit-based bonuses must be carefully calculated against agreed budgets using audited accounts submitted to HMRC as the most reliable evidence.

Legal authorities cited

Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) [1993] ICR 483, HL

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.13ERA 1996 s.27

Case details

Case number
3302628/2024
Decision date
25 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
Managing Director
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No