PTS Services Group Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant was awarded £6,000 as the sum due to him under the contract as the respondent was found to be in breach of contract by not paying him a bonus that was contractually due.

The tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to pay a bonus that was contractually due to the claimant, and therefore awarded the claimant £6,000 as the sum owed under the contract.

• •whether the respondent was in breach of contract in not paying bonus to the claimant

E.T. Z4 (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002801/2025 Final Hearing held in Aberdeen on 24 February 2026 Employment Judge A Kemp Mr Neil Williamson Claimant In person PTS Services Group Ltd Respondent Represented by: Mr G Notman Director JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL 1, The respondent is in breach of contract with the claimant in not paying bonus due to him, and the claimant is awarded the sum of SIX THOUSAND POUNDS (£6,000) as the sum due to him under the contract. 2. The respondent shall be at liberty to deduct from the above sum prior to making payment to the claimant such amounts of Income Tax and Employee National Insurance Contributions (if any) as it may be required by law to deduct from a payment of earnings of that amount made to the claimant, and if it does so, duly remits such sums so deducted to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and provides to the claimant written evidence of the fact and amount of such deductions and of the sums deducted having been remitted to HMRC, and payment of the balance to the claimant shall satisfy the requirements of this judgment. 8002801/2025 Page 2 REASONS Introduction 1. This was a Final Hearing held in person at the Aberdeen Tribunal. The claim made is for breach of contract. The respondent disputes the claim and argues that it was not in breach of contract. The focus of the dispute was on whether or not the claimant had been provided with a written contract of employment which provided for a bonus being discretionary following being presented by hard copy and email with an offer letter for employment which had bonus provisions which were not discretionary. 2. The claimant is a party litigant, and the respondent was represented by its director Mr Notman. Neither ha…