Sales employee awarded £716 after claiming £25,000 in commission
A sales employee who brought a £25,000 commission claim was awarded just £716.40. Both sides' applications for costs were refused.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unpaid-commission
- #costs-application
- #speculative-claim
- #pragmatic-concession
Key facts
- The claimant was employed for a brief period as a salesperson.
- He claimed unpaid commission on multiple sales totaling nearly £25,000.
- The respondent conceded one head of claim 11 months before the hearing and another during the hearing.
- The tribunal found the claimant entitled to commission on one further item (Showcase).
- The total award was £716.40, representing about 2.8% of the claim value.
- Both parties' applications for costs were refused.
Timeline
-
Employment period
The claimant worked for the respondent for a brief period, exact dates not specified.
-
Hearing day 1
Substantive hearing of the claimant's claim for unpaid commission.
-
Hearing day 2
Second day of the substantive hearing.
-
Claimant's costs application
The claimant applied for costs of £2,600 for instructing counsel.
-
Judgment on claim sent
The tribunal sent its judgment determining the respondent owed £716.40 in commission.
-
Respondent's response
The respondent opposed the costs application and sought its own costs of £700.
-
Costs judgment
Employment Judge Sutton KC refused both costs applications.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether either party had acted unreasonably in the conduct of proceedings, justifying a costs order under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013.
The outcome
The tribunal awarded the sales employee £716.40 in unpaid commission, a fraction of the nearly £25,000 claimed.
- The respondent conceded two heads of claim (Silverman and Rosehill) before and during the hearing.
- The tribunal found the claimant entitled to commission on one further item (Showcase).
- The remaining claims were dismissed as speculative and unsupported by evidence.
- Both parties' costs applications were refused: the respondent's defence was not unreasonable, and the claimant's application was not justified.
Lessons & takeaways
- Speculative claims without supporting evidence are unlikely to succeed and may risk a costs order against you.
- Making pragmatic concessions early in proceedings can help avoid a finding of unreasonable conduct.
- A costs application is not an automatic remedy for a low award – the tribunal considers whether the other side acted unreasonably.
- Keep clear records of sales and commission agreements to support your claim from the outset.
A modest win after a high-stakes claim
A sales employee who worked for Nowy Styl UK Limited for a brief period brought a claim for unpaid commission on multiple sales, totalling nearly £25,000. After a two-day hearing, the tribunal awarded him just £716.40 – about 2.8% of what he sought. The result highlights the risks of bringing a claim without solid evidence to back it up.
Why the costs applications failed
Both sides asked the tribunal to make the other pay their legal costs. The claimant sought £2,600 for instructing counsel, arguing the respondent had acted unreasonably by defending the claim. The respondent countered, seeking £700, saying the claim was speculative and the costs application itself was without merit.
The tribunal refused both. It noted that the respondent had made pragmatic concessions – admitting one head of claim 11 months before the hearing and another during it – which is exactly the kind of behaviour tribunals encourage. The respondent was not unreasonable in defending the rest, given the lack of evidence for the major items. And while the tribunal saw force in the respondent's objections to the costs application, it exercised its discretion not to penalise the claimant either.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals expect claimants to have a realistic basis for their claims. Bringing a large, speculative claim can backfire if you end up with a tiny award and face a costs application. For employers, making early concessions on clear-cut items can demonstrate reasonableness and reduce the risk of a costs order against them. But as here, even a successful defence may not guarantee your costs are covered.
Similar cases
10-year employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A Media Sales Operator with 10 years' service had his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out after repeatedly failing to comply with tribunal directions. The tribunal awarded costs against him.
NHS employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims but avoids costs order
An NHS employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were dismissed, but the tribunal refused the Trust's application for costs, finding she had a genuine belief in her case and did not act unreasonably.
Commission-only worker wins unpaid commission claim against Member Benefits Limited
A business development manager who worked on a commission-only basis has been awarded £1,214.50 in unpaid commission after the tribunal found she was a worker, not an employee.
Business consultant wins £5,130 for unpaid commission, holiday and notice pay but loses discrimination claim
A business consultant who was refused homeworking after training has won £5,130 for unpaid commission, holiday pay and notice pay, but her claim of associative disability discrimination was dismissed.