Key Facts
- •Daniel Johnston (appellant) worked for Veritas Technologies (UK) Limited (respondent) as an Enterprise Customer Success Manager.
- •His contract entitled him to commission, potentially exceeding his £125,758 annual salary.
- •A dispute arose over commission for the period ending February 28, 2020, with Johnston claiming £505,564.78 was due (of which £232,015.95 had been paid), while Veritas claimed £232,015.95 was the correct amount.
- •Johnston claimed unlawful wage deduction under sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- •The Employment Tribunal found for Veritas, concluding Johnston received all that was properly due.
- •Johnston appealed, and Veritas cross-appealed.
Legal Principles
In a claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the first question is whether any sum is legally due. Only if so, is deduction considered.
Hellewell v. Axa Services [2011] ICR D29; UKEAT/0084/11/CEA
The words “properly payable” in sub-section 13(3) denote a legal – though not necessarily contractual – entitlement on the part of the worker to the payment in question.
New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v. Church [2000] IRLR 27
Outcomes
Appeal refused; cross-appeal dismissed.
The contract's terms, and the Tribunal's findings, showed the claimed sum was never payable. The approval condition in the commission plan, requiring approval for earnings exceeding 250% of the On-Target Commission, was not met. Therefore, no sum exceeding 250% of the On-Target Commission was ever legally due.