Claimant v Sheffield Hallam University
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim relating to the appointment of Akua Reindorf KC to investigate the claimant was struck out because it was compromised by clause 2.1.2 of the COT3 agreement dated 14 October 2022, which settled all claims arising out of or in connection with the claimant's employment. The investigation occurred during employment and was covered by the settlement agreement.
The claim relating to contact with the Jewish Chronicle about the investigation was struck out. While these events occurred after the COT3, the tribunal found that clause 2.1.2 was sufficiently clear to compromise future claims arising out of or in connection with employment, following the reasoning in Bathgate v Technip Singapore.
The claim relating to contact with the Jewish Chronicle was struck out on the same basis as the race discrimination claim—it was compromised by the COT3 agreement which covered future claims arising out of or in connection with the claimant's employment.
The harassment claims relating to the investigation and engagement with the Jewish Chronicle were struck out as they were compromised by clause 2.1.2 of the COT3 agreement, which covered all claims arising out of or in connection with the claimant's employment, including future claims.
The victimisation claims, including refusal to provide the Reindorf report, were struck out as compromised by the COT3. The tribunal found the claimant had an alternative remedy in the County Court to enforce clause 6 of the COT3, which concerned disclosure of the report.
The whistleblowing claims relating to the investigation and engagement with the Jewish Chronicle were struck out as compromised by the COT3 agreement. Clause 2.1.2 explicitly covered claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, which includes whistleblowing claims.
Facts
The claimant was an Associate Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University from January to October 2022. Allegations were made that she had made anti-Semitic comments, and Akua Reindorf KC was appointed to investigate. The investigation report was completed in September 2022 and exonerated the claimant, but the claimant was not told of the outcome before entering into a COT3 settlement agreement on 14 October 2022. After the COT3, the University engaged with the Jewish Chronicle about the investigation. The claimant brought Employment Tribunal claims for discrimination, harassment, victimisation and whistleblowing, and subsequently a County Court claim alleging breaches of the COT3.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims on jurisdictional grounds, finding they were compromised by clause 2.1.2 of the COT3 agreement which settled all claims arising out of or in connection with the claimant's employment. Following Bathgate, the tribunal held that sufficiently clear language can compromise future claims not yet in the parties' contemplation. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to postpone on medical grounds, finding the balance of justice favoured proceeding despite the claimant's inability to give instructions on a potential undue influence argument.
Practical note
COT3 agreements with sufficiently wide wording can compromise not only existing claims but also future post-employment claims arising out of or connected with the employment relationship, even if those claims were not in the parties' contemplation at the time of settlement.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1802110/2023
- Decision date
- 14 March 2024
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Associate Lecturer
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister