Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Department for Work and Pensions v Brindley UKEAT 0123_16_1711 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) considered whether the wording of a COT3 agreement barred Mrs Brindley from bringing further proceedings against her employer, the DWP. The EAT held that, due to the particular nature of the COT3 wording, the settlement agreement did not bar Mrs Brindley from bringing the further proceedings.

The facts

On 14 July 2014 Mrs Brindley brought a claim against the DWP for discrimination arising on the grounds of her disability (“the First Claim”). The First Claim asserted that Mrs Brindley had been discriminated against by her being given a final written warning on 11 April 2014 for absence from work. Mrs Brindley’s case was that she had been denied the used of a disabled parking space after a reorganisation  and that the removal of the parking space had caused her stress, and that this stress had made her condition worse.

The Respondent contested Mrs Brindley’s claim and a COT3 form settling Mrs Brindley’s claim was entered into by the parties. This agreement was signed on 19 December 2014 by Mrs Brindley and on 31 December 2014 by the DWP, and was headed “Settlement reached on 11/12/2014 as a result of conciliation action”. Under clause 1 of the COT3 the DWP agreed to perform its obligations at clause 2 of the agreement if Mrs Brindley accepted the performance of those obligations in full and final settlement of: “…her claim against the Respondent currently before the London South Employment Tribunal under case number 2301290/2014 (“the Proceedings”) and all other Relevant Claims arising from the facts of the Proceedings up to and including the date this Agreement [sic].”

The “Relevant Claims” were defined as: “… claims related to the Claimant’s employment with the Respondent, whether at common law, under Statute, or pursuant to European Union law either against the Respondent, or any officer or employee of the Respondent including without limitation any claim relating to equal pay, discrimination, harassment, and claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, or any other claim which might be made by the Claimant in relation to her employment to a court or tribunal provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the Claimant’s accrued pension entitlement or any claim for latent personal injury.”

On 8 June 2015 Mrs Brindley submitted a further Employment Tribunal claim (“the Second Claim”). The basis of the Second Claim was that she had been discriminated against by being given a final written warning for her attendance on December 2014.

The DWP submitted its response to the Second Claim on 10 July 2015. An amended version of this response was sent to the Tribunal on 19 November 2015. In the amended version of the response the DWP argued that the Second Claim was barred by the COT3 agreement dated 11 December 2014 and made an application for the Second Claim to be struck out.

On 22 December 2015 the Employment Tribunal concluded that it would not exercise discretion to strike out the Second Claim as, although the DWP had fulfiled its obligations in the December 2014 COT3 agreement, the COT3 agreement only stated that the claims being withdrawn were those claims “arising from the facts of [the First Claim]”. The Employment Judge noted that the First Claim related to car parking, reasonable adjustments, and the first final written warning given on 11 April 2014. The Second Claim related to a second final written warning given on 28 November 2014. The facts of the Second Claim did not therefore arise from the facts of the First Claim, meaning that Mrs Brindley was not barred from bringing the Second Claim.

The DWP appealed the decision of the Employment Tribunal, arguing principally that the factual matrix of the Second Claim arose from that of the First Claim as it related to attendance management, and that the Second Claim should therefore have been struck out. Mrs Brindley argued that the Employment Tribunal had been correct in its decision.

The EAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the Employment Judge had interpreted the December 2014 COT3 agreement correctly: the reasonable person would have interpreted from the wording of the contract that only facts arising from the First Claim were being settled by the COT3.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.73 Average

93 Reviews

Mohamed F

Excellent and professional solicitors, highly recommended

Posted 18 hours ago

Anonymous

Redmans Solicitors provided a professional and prompt service in dealing with my settlement agreement. They used their experience to negotiate a better deal for which I am grateful for. I highly recommend their services.

Posted 3 days ago

Cheryl R

Very efficient and friendly lawyers. I have used Redmans twice now and Chris Hadrill has been amazing to work with. Would highly recommend Redmans.

Posted 3 days ago

Anonymous

I found Redmans Solicitors to be extremely professional, dealing with my questions and concerns quickly and in detail. I would have no hesitation in recommending Redmans Solicitors to anyone.

Posted 3 days ago

Anonymous

I requested Redmans services on a redundancy case. Both Chris and Rana were great, thoughtful, very professional and responded quickly. They were very clear throughout the entire process, regarding the process and my options and I couldn't feel I had better legal advice for my case. Overall excellent service and I would certainly recommend and use their services again.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Responsive, patient, thorough and personable - an excellent service.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

The team at Redmans, Chris Hadrill and Sacha Barrett were always very helpful and had expert knowledge to assist me during my employment law matter, I would not hesitate to recommend them to all!

Posted 1 week ago

Arun T

Chris was punctual, attentive and accurate. He answered my questions with clarity and avoided dubiosity. I would recommend him to anyone seeking legal advice within his remit.

Posted 1 week ago

Yulian Z

Great service

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Excellent, professional service and a speedy resolution. Many thanks

Posted 1 week ago

Taral P

Sacha and Chris were both very helpful in closing out my matter. Sacha was very clear in helping me understanding the documents I needed reviewing, providing a professional service throughout.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Really pleased with the swift and professional service from Redmans. They provided very clear advice and helped conclude my matter with the minimum of stress or delay.

Posted 1 week ago

Matthew L

Redmans were very quick to respond to my initial enquiry, and provided me with a very effective and efficient service, generating a most satisfactory outcome. I would definitely use them again if the need arose.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

First rate service. Warm and friendly whilst exceptionally efficient at the same time. I would highly recommend them.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Professional and helpful. Thorough and supportive.

Posted 1 week ago

Richard A

Excellent service, prompt replies, great advice

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Very professional services

Posted 1 week ago

Margaret

Redmans Solicitors took a lot of the worry away and were very thoughtful and meticulous in their dealings with my case , thank you very mush , great service and a great job

Posted 1 month ago

Mark B

Prompt efficient service. Hourly, and part thereof, billing got a bit stressful at times - as opposed to flat fee - made me think twice about sending an email or making a quick call when I had a query because it would have eaten up minutes from my budget. But happy with the legal service I received overall and would recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill has provided a truly wonderful service and was willing to lend his support and expertise at a time when other solicitors, only wanted to discuss their fees! A clear thinking and down to earth professional, Chris can be trusted to listen carefully to your matter, cut through the fog, and advise you on the best (and most realistic) way forward, saving you time, money and heartache. It will be helpful if you first get your ducks in a row in terms of documents / evidence etc. and then contact Chris, (that’s what we did) as this will help your matter to be dealt with faster. The more organised and together you are the more successful you will be. You'll be fine with Chris, I highly recommend him. Good luck!

Posted 1 month ago

Richard v

Excellent Service

Posted 2 months ago