High Court rules solicitor failed to meet commission threshold after firm’s successful appeal
A London law firm has overturned a tribunal ruling that awarded a junior solicitor more than £7,800 in commission, after the High Court found the claim could not be justified.
In Raymond Saul & Co LLP v Mr Billy Rashbrook, Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Burns KC dismissed the solicitor’s case and reversed an earlier judgment from the London Central Employment Tribunal.
The dispute centred on Rashbrook’s contract, which entitled him to receive a 20% commission on profit costs invoiced by him, provided they were at least three times his annual £38,000 salary. In March 2023, the tribunal had concluded that boutique firm Raymond Saul & Co LLP should pay him £7,866 under this clause.
However, Judge Burns ruled that the tribunal had misinterpreted the terms of the contract. He said the commission clause was subject to three essential conditions: that the profit costs had to be invoiced by Rashbrook himself, that clients must have paid the amounts to the firm, and that the work must have been carried out by Rashbrook personally. Any costs relating to the work of colleagues—including partners, trainees or other fee-earners—could not be included in his calculation.
Embed from Getty Images“The contract should be construed so that the claimant only earns commission from the profit costs exceeding the threshold which were in respect of his work and not the work of any of his colleagues,” Burns said in his judgment.
The firm had argued that Rashbrook had not come close to meeting the threshold required to trigger commission, even under a generous assessment of the work attributable to him. Given that Rashbrook was still in his first year as a qualified solicitor, the firm maintained it was unsurprising that he had not generated sufficient profit costs on his own.
Judge Burns criticised the employment tribunal for suggesting there was no evidence of records that could determine how much of the work was Rashbrook’s. He described that finding as “perverse”, pointing to the firm’s time recording system which clearly captured contributions from multiple team members.
On review of the files, the court found that around 35% of the work could reasonably be attributed to other solicitors and trainees. Even with this conservative estimate, Rashbrook’s own contribution fell far short of the threshold necessary to earn commission.
“I think it is fanciful to think that the claimant would be able to satisfy any reasonable Employment Tribunal that he did sufficient work during the commission year in order to cross the commission threshold,” Burns concluded.
As a result, the claim was dismissed in full, leaving Rashbrook without the £7,866 bonus originally awarded by the tribunal.
The ruling underscores the difficulties junior lawyers may face when employment contracts tie commission payments directly to personal billing performance, particularly in the early years of practice when a significant proportion of work is often shared with colleagues.
While the case turned on a specific contractual interpretation, it highlights the importance for firms and junior solicitors alike to ensure clarity in bonus and commission structures, and to keep detailed time records capable of demonstrating how work is apportioned.
For Rashbrook, the decision marks the end of a two-year battle that began with a tribunal win but ultimately ended in defeat on appeal.