Inten Education Group Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant brought proceedings for unlawful deduction from wages against her former employer, an education consultancy. The tribunal found the respondent unlawfully deducted £1870.00 in unpaid commission from the claimant's wages and ordered the respondent to pay this sum.

The tribunal found that the respondent operated a contractual commission scheme, and despite some ambiguity in the terms, the basis for commission being payable on student enrolments was sufficiently certain. The claimant identified 28 student enrolments entitling her to commission payments that were not made, constituting an unlawful deduction from wages.

• •Whether claimant submitted claim within three month time limit for unlawful deduction of wages
• •Whether it was reasonably practicable to submit claim within primary time limit
• •Whether sums paid to claimant were less than properly payable
• •Whether sum payable is properly identifiable and not unliquidated
• •Validity and terms of commission scheme

Case No. 2404378/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs S Xie Respondent: Inten Education Group Limited HELD AT: Manchester (in public; CVP) ON: 24 th February 2026 BEFORE: Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Respondent: Mr J Webb (Lay Representative) Mr S Wang (Director) JUDGMENT 1. The Respondent unlawfully deducted the sum of £1870.00 from the wages of the Claimant. The Respondent is ordered to pay this sum to the Claimant. This sum is calculated on a gross basis and the Claimant must account to the revenue for any tax liability on this sum. Case No. 2404378/2025 2 JUDGMENT having been given orally on 24 th February 2026 and written reasons having been requested at the hearing, in accordance with Rule 60(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (as then drafted), the following reasons are provided: REASONS Introduction & Procedural Matters 1. The Claimant Mrs. S Xie brings proceedings for unlawful deduction from wages against her former employer Inten Education Group Limited. 2. I have before me: a. A Claimant bundle b. A Respondent bundle c. Additional payslips sent in by the Respondent d. Witness statement(s) of the Claimant e. Witness statement(s) of Mr. Wang of the Respondent 3. Each side submitted two statements on behalf of each witness. I took both statements into account. The witness statements were affirmed as true and both the Claimant and Mr. Wang were cross-examined. 4. The hearing took place by way of CVP over a period of three hours. 5. Neither party was legally represented. The hearing was listed for three hours including deliberation and judgment time. Whilst I sought to give the parties leeway, it was necessary for me to engage in some management of the hearing to ens…