Claimant v Howserv Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that a legally binding COT3 settlement agreement was reached on 10 January 2025 via ACAS conciliation, with the claimant unequivocally accepting the respondent's agreement to her offer of five months' salary and a reference. The tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim due to the binding settlement agreement preventing the claimant from instituting tribunal proceedings.
The tribunal found that a legally binding COT3 settlement agreement was reached on 10 January 2025 via ACAS conciliation. The tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim due to the binding settlement agreement which contained valid provisions preventing the claimant from instituting tribunal proceedings against the respondent.
The tribunal found that a legally binding COT3 settlement agreement was reached on 10 January 2025 via ACAS conciliation. The tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim due to the binding settlement agreement which contained valid provisions preventing the claimant from instituting tribunal proceedings against the respondent.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed for capability on 11 October 2024 after nearly 10 years' service as a retention agent. She commenced ACAS early conciliation claiming unfair dismissal and age and disability discrimination. During conciliation, she counter-offered five months' salary and a reference, which the respondent accepted. A COT3 settlement agreement was issued on 10 January 2025. The claimant subsequently sought to resile from the agreement, claiming she had not consented to the terms during a phone call with the conciliation officer on that date.
Decision
The tribunal found that a legally binding COT3 settlement agreement was reached on 10 January 2025. Applying ordinary contractual principles, the tribunal concluded on an objective assessment of the evidence that the claimant had unequivocally accepted the settlement terms during her phone call with the conciliation officer. The tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that she did not consent, noting contemporaneous documents and subsequent actions were consistent with an agreement having been reached. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed them.
Practical note
A claimant cannot resile from an ACAS-conciliated settlement agreement by claiming lack of consent where the objective evidence, including contemporaneous documents and the conciliation officer's actions, demonstrates that agreement was reached during a telephone call, even without a verbatim record of that conversation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600203/2025
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Howserv Limited
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- retention agent
- Service
- 10 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister