Claimant v The Construction Industry Training Board
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim has no reasonable prospect of success. It seeks to set aside a COT3 agreement signed in 2018 and relitigate claims dismissed in 2016. The alleged misrepresentation does not satisfy the legal definition and amounts only to an allegation of coercion by legal advisers, which is not actionable misrepresentation. The claim is also several years out of time.
This was an application to set aside a COT3 agreement and dismissal judgment from 2018. The tribunal found the alleged misrepresentation (being coerced by legal advisers) does not meet the legal definition requiring an untrue statement of fact inducing entry to the contract. The claimant had legal representation throughout the 2016 case, obtained counsel's opinion, and signed a detailed COT3 agreement receiving over £60,000.
Facts
The claimant was employed as an Apprenticeship Officer from 2011 to 2016. She brought tribunal claims in 2016 for unfair dismissal and discrimination, which were settled via ACAS COT3 agreement in October 2018 for over £60,000, with an apology and reference. A dismissal judgment was issued in November 2018. In December 2024, she brought a new claim seeking to set aside the COT3 and relitigate the original claims, plus add a whistleblowing complaint. She alleged she was coerced by her legal advisers into signing the agreement.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The alleged misrepresentation (coercion by legal advisers) did not meet the legal definition requiring an untrue statement of fact. The claimant had full legal representation, obtained counsel's opinion, and signed a detailed COT3. The tribunal also found it would no longer be possible to have a fair hearing due to the passage of time (last events in 2015) and resulting prejudice to the respondent.
Practical note
An allegation of coercion or pressure by one's own legal advisers to settle does not constitute actionable misrepresentation capable of setting aside a COT3 agreement where the claimant had full legal representation and knowingly signed a detailed settlement.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4107907/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Apprenticeship Officer
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep