The Claimant was engaged by the Respondent, a firm of solicitors, under a consultancy agreement pursuant to which he carried out duties as a consultant and was entitled to 40% of the fees billed, paid and received by the Respondent firm. The agreement included an “entire agreement” clause and said that it could only be varied by an agreement in writing signed by the parties. The Claimant claimed fees in respect of work billed in relation to one client, referred to as “client A”, as unlawful deductions from wages. The ET held that (i) there was a separate oral agreement governing the work done for client A; (ii) alternatively, under the written consultancy agreement, the Claimant was only entitled to fees calculated on the basis of fees billed and paid for work he had done personally for client A and not for work done by other fee earners. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET was correct to decide that under the written consultancy agreement, properly interpreted, the Claimant was only entitled to 40% of the fees billed, paid and received in respect of the work he personally did for client A (and not for fees paid in respect of work done by others). Although the EJ was wrong to find that there could be a separate oral agreement governing the work for client A in light of the “entire agreement” and “no oral variations” clause following MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising [2019] AC 119, this error was academic and immaterial because of her correct conclusion about the interpretation of the written consultancy agreement. That conclusion also meant that the Respondent did not make a deduction from wages.