Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
The claimant appealed against a decision to strike out his victimisation claim against the respondent. The basis for the claim being struck out was that the claim fell within a widely drafted COT3 settlement agreement between the parties.
The claimant was only in employment with the respondent for one month. In March 2018 there was a settlement through the COT3 settlement agreement form. It stated that it was ‘full and final settlement of all claims of any kind whatsoever, wheresoever and howsoever arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with the claimant’s employment with the respondent…’ In May 2018 the claimant brought a further claim against the respondent relating to victimisation. The claim being that he was unsuccessful in applying for a role with a German company which was a wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent. At first instance, the Tribunal held that it fell within the scope of the settlement agreement and there was no reasonable prospect of success.
The EAT upheld the finding that the claim fell within the scope of the settlement agreement. However, they did allow the appeal relating to the finding that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant appealed this to the Court of Appeal. The Court found that the claim did fall within the settlement agreement. They found that the claim relating to his ‘protected act’ and the claim that he had brought. Therefore, the claim he was seeking to bring here was indirectly connected to that previous employment which was covered by the settlement agreement. This was especially so considering that the claimant suggested the claim arose out of acts in January and February 2018 and the settlement agreement was in March 2018. As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and stated the Tribunal was correct to strike out the claim.
Practical Lessons:
This case is yet another on the extent to which settlement agreements can be relied upon. This was a very widely drafted settlement agreement and whilst it must relate to some particular claim it was held that this claim did indirectly link to the claim that was originally brought. As a result, the settlement agreement covered the situation and provided protection for the respondent.
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
