[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ellis v Nottingham Trade Interiors [1999] UKEAT 797_98_0102 (1 February 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/797_98_0102.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 797_98_0102, [1999] UKEAT 797_98_102

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance/representation by/on behalf of the Appellant


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE CLARK: The Appellant, Mr Ellis, commenced employment with the Respondent, which installs kitchen fittings, as a site surveyor, on 22 September 1997. Prior to starting on he had a meeting with Mr Hewitt, a director of the company, at which it was agreed that he would receive a basic salary of £10,000 and a bonus of between £6,000 and £8,000 per annum.

By 13 November he had received his basic pay but no bonus. He raised the question of bonus with Mr Hewitt on that day, having earlier raised it with Mrs Hewitt, to be told that none would be paid as he, the Appellant, had not performed to standard. Disenchanted, the Appellant promptly left the employment. He then commenced proceedings before the Nottingham Employment Tribunal for alleged unpaid bonus monies.

The claim came before a Chairman, Mr JJB Stafford sitting alone on 18 March 1998. He dismissed the claim on the grounds that the term as to bonus payments was too uncertain to give rise to an enforceable contractual claim. His decision with extended reasons is dated 24 April 1998.

Against that decision Mr Ellis appealed by notice dated 29 May 1998. He has not attended before us today to advance his appeal and has not responded to correspondence from this Tribunal and therefore we have considered the appeal on the papers at this preliminary hearing held to determine whether any arguable point or points of law arise which ought to be heard at a full appeal hearing.

The point taken in the Notice of appeal, by reference to the statutory requirement that employers have up to 13 weeks in which to issue a statement of terms and conditions of employment, as opposed to entering into a written contract of employment, is that, we infer, the claim ought not to have been dismissed on the ground that there was no written contract. However, that was not the basis for the Chairman's decision as we understand it. It was open to the parties to agree orally a bonus scheme. The difficulty here is that there was no agreement of any sort as to the circumstances in which a bonus became payable, and the formula on which such payments would be based. The term was too vague and uncertain. Accordingly it was not enforceable at law. That was a permissible finding on the facts of this case. The appeal must be dismissed.