Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

An extremely important element of any compromise agreement is the “all claims” clause (also known as the “waiver of claims” clause). This clause is an attempt by the employer to limit or exclude its liability relating to future claims that an employee may have – either currently or in the future. In this article we’ll take a look at:

  • The purpose of a compromise agreement;
  • Why it is necessary to specifically exclude all claims;
  • The consequences of not excluding all claims; and
  • Which claims are excluded from the “all claims” ambit

The purpose of compromise agreements

Employees (and workers, a different category of persons working under a contract of service) are vested with certain rights at their employment by virtue of their contract of employment and statute. Under statute employees (and workers in some areas) have the right to, for example, not be discriminated against and not be unfairly dismissed. They can exercise these rights at any time (depending upon the type of claim and their employment status) – at the recruitment stage, during their employment, and at the termination of their contract of employment. Where there may be a potential claim, employers will want to limit or exclude the employee’s right to make such claims in return for consideration (a cash payment, normally).

Why it is necessary to exclude all claims

When the employer is trying to limit or exclude its liability, it must be careful to list out all potential claims that the worker or employee may have. This is primarily a result of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Hinton v East London University[2005]. In Hinton the Court of Appeal held that compromise agreements must clearly identify all the statutory claims that are being settled in the compromise agreement. If there is a failure to do so then there is no binding waiver and the employee is entitled to bring a claim for any statutory claims not included in the compromise agreement.

If there is general wording in the compromise agreement (i.e. “all statutory claims are excluded”) then this will also not suffice. It would also be necessary not only to identify the statute that is being excluded (such as the “Equality Act 2010”) but also to include all potential claims under that Act, for example “sex discrimination” or “direct sex discrimination”. Further, if actual proceedings are ongoing against the employer, the compromise agreement should make specific reference to this.

An interesting further comment in Hinton is the suggestion that employment lawyers should not use standard template compromise agreements but that each compromise agreement should be tailored to the specific circumstances of the parties in any one instance.

Consequences of not excluding all claims

Should the employer fail to either exclude all the claims (i.e. through insufficient and general wording) the employee is free to pursue their employer for any and all relevant claims in their circumstances. If, however, the employer excludes every claim but (for some reason) the waiver of the right to claim unfair dismissal under s.94(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 is left out of the compromise agreement then the employee is entitled to pursue their employer for unfair dismissal (should, again, this be possible on the particular facts).

Which claims are excluded from the “all claims” ambit?

Generally, the employee’s right to claim for personal injury (except for personal injury claims that they don’t have knowledge of at the time of the compromise agreement) is preserved under the compromise agreement. However, the employer can (and may) attempt to exclude liability for personal injury. The employee’s right to claim for accrued pension rights should also be preserved under the compromise agreement.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog.

Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Tagged with →  
Share →

One Response to Hinton v University of East London: Compromise agreements and “all claims” clauses

  1. Stephen Devereux says:

    The Hinton v east London Uni has become very relevant to my own situation. I signed a compromise agreement (COT3) that included the clause that would not support or encourage any other employee of the Respondent to bring a grievance or complaint against them. I objected but the ACAS negotiator told me there would be no deal without this clause. I signed it, thinking that, as an ex-employee, it would be extremely unlikely that i would be supporting anyone else.

    Later, however, an employee of the Respondent brought a claim for discrimination on the grounds of disability. As her union rep I had attended meetings in which her situation was discussed. The content of these meetings is disputed. The Claimant asked the ET to make a witness order, which she believed would protect me. However, the Respondent threatened to sue for the entire sum of the settlement plus costs if I testified or submitted a witness statement or even if I corresponded with the ET. I took legal advice at a considerable cost, and the Respondent conceded, eventually, that I could testify and produce a witness statement, but restated their rights in relation to the clause in the agreement. I am wondering whether I can reclaim the money I have had to spend to prove what was clearly the legal situation in the first place. As the Hinton case makes clear the ‘particular proceedings’ must be the subject of an agreement, not an unspecified claim by another employee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

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

4.52 Average

21 Reviews

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 3 weeks ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 1 month ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 1 month ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 1 month ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 1 month ago

Keith

Quick fast professional service.

Posted 1 month ago

Michael

"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

"Excellent service, getting back to you promptly giving you very good advice."

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I found Chris Hadrill to be an excellent help, he is very knowledgeable and gives good ,concise ,strategic advice .He makes himself readily accessible when you need him.I would personally highly recommend him.

Posted 2 months ago

Christine

Professional, efficient and reliable service provided. I strongly recommend them and I would use this service again.

Posted 2 months ago