Claimant v Triangular Care Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondents deliberately failed to pay settlement monies from a COT3 agreement resolving a prior disability discrimination claim (case 3309588/2022). The tribunal concluded that the First Claim was in the mind of Mr Spikesley when the decision not to pay was made, as evidenced by his statement that 'It hurts that someone has gone to that length to pull one over on you.' The respondents' alleged financial difficulties were found to be a sham, in part created by Mr Spikesley withdrawing £17,000 from the company on the same day the settlement agreement was entered into. The tribunal concluded the First Claim was the only factor influencing the decision not to pay the settlement monies.
Facts
The claimant was employed as Liaison Director from 2005 to 2022. She brought a disability discrimination claim (3309588/2022) which settled via COT3 on 21 November 2023 for £30,000 payable within 28 days. On the same day the settlement was agreed, director Mr Spikesley transferred £17,000 from the company to his personal account, allegedly for a hip replacement. The company failed to pay the settlement by 19 December 2023. The claimant was forced to take enforcement action, resulting in only £13,000 being paid in April 2024 with the balance at £100 per month. The respondents claimed financial difficulties but provided no credible documentary evidence.
Decision
The tribunal found the victimisation claim succeeded. The respondents' alleged financial difficulties were found to be a sham, in part created by Mr Spikesley's £17,000 withdrawal on the settlement date (which he repaid on the payment deadline date). The tribunal concluded that Mr Spikesley's statement that it 'hurts that someone has gone to that length to pull one over on you' demonstrated the prior discrimination claim was in his mind when deciding not to pay. The First Claim was found to be the only factor influencing the non-payment decision.
Practical note
Deliberately failing to honour a COT3 settlement agreement for a discrimination claim constitutes victimisation where the protected act was a motivating factor in the non-payment decision, particularly where alleged financial difficulties are found to be contrived.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302450/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Liaison Director
- Service
- 17 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister