For assistance negotiating and writing settlement agreements, contact our team on 01332 226 155 or complete the form below.
In the recent case of Bathgate -v- Technip UK and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Equality Act 2010 does not allow for the settlement of future discrimination claims that are unknown at the time of entering into a settlement agreement.
29 November 2022
Case Study
The claimant, who was aged over 61, signed a settlement agreement as part of a voluntary redundancy package. The settlement agreement included enhanced redundancy and notice entitlements, and also an additional sum calculated by reference to a collective agreement. Notably, there was no requirement in the collective agreements for additional payments to those over 61.
When that change was communicated to the claimant, he sought to bring an age discrimination claim. In response to his claim, the employer argued that the claim had been compromised by the settlement agreement and so it could not proceed at the employment tribunal.
Case Study
The employment tribunal sided with the employer as it concluded that the settlement agreement included a waiver of “all claims…of whatever nature (whether past, present or future)”.
The case was appealed and the EAT allowed the claimant’s appeal on this point. While the claimant had signed away a long list of claims, including age discrimination claims, the EAT did not accept that this identified the particular claim as required by section 147 of the Equality Act 2010.
Section 147 allows employment claims to be compromised by way of a settlement agreement that “relates to a particular complaint.” Lord Summers (who heard the claim in the EAT) was of the view that the use of those words demonstrated that when passing the legislation, Parliament anticipated the existence of an actual complaint or circumstances where the grounds for complaint existed. Unfortunately for the claimant, the appeal also concerned a jurisdictional point in which he was unsuccessful, and for this reason the EAT ruled that the claim could not succeed.
This case highlights that it is only possible to waive statutory employment claims when an actual complaint exists or circumstances exist that may give to grounds for a complaint. In this case, the circumstances giving rise to the age discrimination claim only came to light after signing a settlement agreement and therefore could not be waived under the agreement.
As a result of this finding, employers may see a change of direction and possibly an increase of litigation on the validity of waivers, which emphasises the importance of carefully drafted settlement agreements.
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More