And speaking of complex tapestries brings me seamlessly to the case of Raymond Saul & Co LLP v Rashbrook 2025, in which the Employment Tribunal — and then the Employment Appeals Tribunal — considered the rights, wrongs and potential post-departure pay-out of a law firm’s commission scheme.

Mr Rashbrook joined Raymond Saul & Co LLP (the Firm) in 2018. He initially worked as a trainee solicitor and, upon qualification in September 2021, continued with the firm as a newly qualified solicitor. His employment contract included a commission scheme entitling him to 20% of the firm’s “profit costs invoiced by the employee and paid by clients in excess of three times the employee’s annual salary” provided those fees related to work he had personally carried out.

Following his qualification, Mr Rashbrook raised a dispute about commission he believed he was owed under this scheme. He argued that once his billed and paid work exceeded the set threshold, he was contractually entitled to a commission payment on the full amount, without any reduction or “apportionment” to reflect contributions by other fee earners.

The Firm disagreed and maintained that the contract required any commission to relate only to profit costs earned from work done personally by the employee. Because many of Mr Rashbrook’s matters had involved collaboration with partners, trainees, and other solicitors, the Firm argued that commission should be calculated only on the portion of work attributable to him. Discussions between the parties failed to resolve the issue, and tensions grew around the interpretation of the commission scheme.

In November 2022, Mr Rashbrook’s employment came to an end. Following his departure, he continued to seek payment of the commission he believed he was owed, but the Firm refused to make any further payments.

Mr Rashbrook then filed a claim for unlawful deduction from wages with the Employment Tribunal.

Mr Rashbrook’s claim succeeded. The ET held that the contract did not expressly allow for apportionment and concluded that he was entitled to 20% commission on the total profit costs invoiced over the threshold. The ET also found that the Firm’s internal records did not allow it to justify any division of work between fee earners.

The Firm appealed the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the ET had misinterpreted the commission clause by ignoring key contractual wording that limited payments to work “carried out by the employee”. It further contended that the ET’s finding on the absence of records was perverse, given the evidence of time-recording systems and breakdowns showing contributions from multiple fee earners.

The EAT upheld the appeal. They found that the ET had erred in law by disregarding the contractual limitation that commission applied only to work done personally by the employee. The phrase “in respect of work carried out by the employee” was described as a clear and deliberate restriction, and the ET’s interpretation of treating all billed amounts as qualifying for commission had effectively read those words out of the contract.

The EAT also found that the ET’s conclusion about the absence of records was not supported by the evidence. The Firm had provided documentation showing how work was apportioned among team members, and the ET had failed to engage properly with that evidence. These findings rendered the ET’s decision unsustainable.

This case is significant because it highlights the importance of careful contractual interpretation in commission disputes. The EAT reaffirmed that express wording limiting entitlement to an employee’s own work cannot be ignored, even in team-based professional settings. It also underlines that ETs must consider all relevant evidence when determining how commission or bonus schemes operate in practice. For law firms and other professional employers, the judgment provides a clear reminder to ensure that commission structures are drafted precisely and administered transparently to avoid costly disputes.