Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

In the case of McWilliam & ors v Glasgow City Council UKEAT 0036_10_1003 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) was asked to determine three questions: 1) whether the settlement agreements had validly settled equal pay claims that could otherwise be brought?; 2) whether the claimants had “received advice” from an “independent adviser”?; and 3) whether the solicitors who had advised the claimants had been “acting in the matter for the Respondent”? The EAT dismissed the appeal, answering “no” to questions 1 and 3, and “yes” to question 2.

In November 2005 a group of six employees (“the Claimants”) signed settlement agreements that entitled them to be paid various compensation payments by Glasgow City Council (“the Respondent”). About 10,500 employees of the Respondent had access to settlement agreements in 2005 and 2006.

The process of the signing of the settlement agreements in 2005 was more complex than is generally usual for settlement agreements, due to the number of the Respondent’s employees who required advice on the agreements: the Respondent put out a tender for law firms who were interested in (and able to) provide legal advice to a substantial number of potential clients in a short period of time. Fifteen firms registered an interest and a panel of six firms was formed. It was agreed that the Respondent would pay the solicitors’ fees (£1,000 plus VAT per adviser – up to a maximum of 5 – for attending and advising clients at 3 sessions) and that the fees would be paid irrespective of whether or not the individual employee agreed to enter into the settlement agreement.

A draft settlement agreement was provided to the firms of solicitors and the firms of solicitors proceeded to negotiate various terms of the agreement on behalf of their clients. One firm of solicitors, McGrigors, decided that they would not be able to advise employees on the specific nature of their claims against the Respondent due to the lack of precise information provided, and therefore limited the advice provided to advice on the terms and effect of the settlement agreement (after receiving advice from the Law Society of Scotland that this was sufficient to meet their obligations).

There was a group meeting where the solicitors took the Claimants through a Power Point presentation and explained the terms and effect of the agreement to them. It was also explained to the Claimants that the solicitors could not advise on whether each employee had a valid equal pay claim or not and, if they did, what its value was. The Claimants signed the agreement, as did many of their colleagues.

In 2010 the Claimants sought to bring Employment Tribunal equal pay claims against the Respondent. The Claimants were a representative sample of a much wider group of Claimants who had also brought Employment Tribunal claims against the Respondent. The Respondent argued that the Claimants’ claims should be struck out as they had been settled by the 2005 settlement agreements and, at a preliminary hearing, the Employment Judge struck out the claims as having been settled by the Claimants’ settlement agreements, as the wording of the settlement agreement was sufficiently clear to settle the equal pay claims.

The Claimants appealed to the EAT on three bases:

  1. That no particular complaint had been settled by the settlement agreements, as no proceedings had been lodged at the time that the settlement agreements were entered into (“the First Ground”); and
  2. That the solicitors for the Claimants were ‘acting in the matter’ for the Respondent, as they were on a panel and being paid by the Respondent (“the Second Ground”); and
  3. That the Claimants had not “received advice” from “independent advisers”, as the advice had been limited to advice on the terms and effect of the settlement agreement (“the Third Ground”) (together “the Grounds”)

The Claimant argued that, individually or cumulatively, the Grounds were sufficient to render the settlement agreements that they had signed invalid and unenforceable.

The EAT rejected the argument that proceedings would have to have been lodged before the signing of the settlement agreement in order to settle a particular claim – what matters is that both parties knew to what particular matter the settlement agreement related and, in the circumstances, the Claimants were aware that they were settling an equal pay claim.

With regards to the Second Ground, the EAT rejected the argument that the solicitors were acting in the matter for the Respondent: the firms of solicitors were acting to protect the employees’ interests as a group and consulted with them individually in meetings, where the employee was provided with advice – this was the case with the Claimants.

The EAT also rejected the argument that the Claimants had not received advice on the terms and effect of the agreement: it was clear that the solicitors had provided the employees with information at the group presentation and with individual advice at the individual meetings. This was enough to satisfy the statutory requirements for a settlement agreement. It was not necessary, as the Claimants argued, to advise them on whether each settlement agreement was a good one for them personally, as this was not required by section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1976 (NB: this statute has now been replaced by section 146 of the Equality Act 2010).

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “This case confirms that it is not necessary for individual advisers to advise on the prospects of success of any claim that an employee has, although many advisers do offer such advice. If you need to get advice on a settlement agreement then you should ensure that you make it clear to your solicitor that not only do you require legal advice on the terms and the effect of your settlement agreement, but that you also require advice on the prospects and value of your individual claims.”

The original judgment can be found here: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2011/0036_10_1003.html

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.

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

4.52 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 1 month ago

Steven

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

Posted 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month ago

Anonymous

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

Posted 2 months 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 2 months ago

Anonymous

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

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

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

Posted 2 months 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 2 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 2 months 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 2 months ago

Kurt

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

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 2 months ago

Keith

Quick fast professional service.

Posted 2 months ago

Michael

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

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

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

Posted 2 months 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