Claimant v Impulse Innovations Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not entitled to commission on the LG Energy deal because he did not have 'active involvement' during his garden leave period as required by his termination letter. The claimant only provided handover notes and sent a few chaser emails asking if the deal had closed. He had no communication with the client or lead on the deal, did not participate in the Korea trip, and could not provide specific examples of active involvement. The tribunal held that 'active involvement' requires more than composing handover notes and chaser emails; it suggests concrete contributions moving the contract forward. In any event, the claim was presented out of time.
Facts
The claimant was a General Manager made redundant in May 2023 with three months' garden leave ending August 2023. His termination letter stated he would receive 50% commission on deals closing before year-end where he was deal owner and remained 'actively involved' during garden leave. The LG Energy deal, which the claimant had initiated, closed in September 2023 and was paid in October 2023. The claimant provided handover notes on a shared spreadsheet but had no further involvement in the deal during garden leave. The respondent's team spent approximately 242 hours closing the deal without the claimant's involvement. The claimant only discovered the deal had closed on 26 January 2024 when he saw a case study on the respondent's website.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim on two grounds. First, it was presented out of time. Although it was not reasonably practicable to claim by the original deadline of 29 January 2024 (as the claimant did not know the deal had closed), the delay until 22 April 2024 was not reasonable and the claim should have been presented by 15 February 2024 or at latest 21 March 2024. Second, on the merits, the claimant failed because he did not have 'active involvement' in the deal during garden leave as required by his termination letter. Providing handover notes and sending a few chaser emails did not constitute active involvement.
Practical note
Commission agreements requiring 'active involvement' will be interpreted as requiring concrete, substantive contributions during the relevant period — handover documentation and status enquiries are insufficient.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2218789/2024
- Decision date
- 8 August 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- General Manager in the Go to Market team
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No