Can a judge overturn a settlement agreement? YES! A judge in the United Kingdom can overturn a settlement agreement you signed, in part or entirely. We have to understand that an Employment Settlement Agreement, even if facilitated by an ACAS officer or a high-profile solicitor, in certain situations can be rendered as a ''voidable contract''.
A voidable contract is a formal agreement between two parties that may be rendered unenforceable for any number of legal reasons, which may include: Failure by one or both parties to disclose a material fact, a mistake, misrepresentation, or fraud, undue influence or duress.
Classification of Contracts According to their Effect" Chitty on Contracts 34th Edition (Chitty) confirms that: A voidable contract is one where one or more of its parties have the power, by a manifestation of election to do so, to avoid the legal relations created by the contract; or by affirmation of the contract to extinguish the power of avoidance. In English law, contracts
may be voidable, e.g. for misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, minority,
lack of mental capacity, drunkenness or under statute".
In the context of Employment Settlement the most common grounds for voidable contract is misrepresentation, undue influeance, lack of mental capacity and duress.
Does Employment Tribunal have Jurisdiction to Examin Voidability of the Setllement Agreement ?
The EAT case of Hennessy v Craigmyle & Co Ltd [1985] ICR 879 and the more
recent case of Cole v Elders' Voice [2021] ICR 611 both confirm that an
Employment Tribunal can investigate the circumstances in which a settlement
agreement/contract, as defined by S.203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, is valid or can be avoided at common law, or in equity, for duress or any other eligible reason.
If you or someone you know has signed such a settlement, it may be challenging to find a solicitor willing to assist, primarily due to the associated legal fees and the clear fact that no one will want to take it on a no win, no fee basis. This is why we pay particularly close attention to this topic and provide you with a series of articles to help you understand if your case has any chance of success.
Below is an essential law case from 2023 involving an ACAS conciliator, where the judge decided to void the settlement and hear the case of Miss A Caulkett regarding pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Miss Caulkett's situation is quite unique, yet certain aspects can be found in other cases of ''voidable contract''. Judge V. Othen's detailed explanation in this judgment provides essential knowledge for professionals and litigants in person dealing with this issue. We highly recommend reading it as an initial step to understand your position.
Case number: 3301362/2022
MPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Miss Alex Caulkett
Respondent Richard Fulke Johnson and Eve Johnson Houghton T/A Eve
Johnson Houghton Racing
Heard at
Watford Employment Tribunal
On 25 January and 9 February 2023
Before Employment Judge Othen (sitting alone)
Representation
Claimant Mr Ismail (counsel)
Respondent Mr Dear (solicitor)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims brought by the
Claimant against the Respondent in this claim, in light of a COT3 agreement
entered into between the parties on 15 October 2021
REASONS
Introduction
1. The Respondent is a racehorse training business and runs a racing stable with
approximately eighty racehorses. The Claimant was employed by the
Respondent as a Stable Lass/Work Rider from 6 February 2019. Her
employment was terminated by way of a COT3 agreement on 15 October
2021.
2. The Claimant claims that she was dismissed, that her dismissal was unfair and
also brings claims of pregnancy/maternity discrimination.
3. The Respondent contests the claims. It contends that the tribunal does not
have jurisdiction to hear them as they were settled by way of the COT3
agreement dated 15 October 2021. The Claimant disputes this and asserts
that the COT3 agreement was concluded by her under duress and should be
set aside. She further asserts that her claims of pregnancy/maternity
discrimination were not settled under the terms of that COT3 agreement.
4. The Claimant was represented by Mr Ismail of counsel and gave sworn
evidence. The Respondent was represented by Mr Dear, solicitor, who called
sworn evidence from Sarah Scott, the Respondent's Racing Secretary at the
material time of the claim. I considered the documents from an agreed 126-
page bundle of documents which the parties introduced in evidence.
Preliminary Issues for the Tribunal to decide
5. The preliminary issue for the Employment Tribunal to decide during this
hearing, as confirmed by a Notice of Hearing dated 20 May 2022 was whether
it has jurisdiction to hear the claims brought by the Claimant against the
Respondent in light of a COT3 agreement entered into between the parties on
15 October 2021 (“the COT3 Agreement”).
6. From the preliminary hearing, the specific preliminary issues to determined
were:
6.1 Issue 1
***
6.1.1 Whether the COT3 Agreement is voidable on the grounds of duress; and
if it is so voidable:
6.1.2 Whether it should be set aside; and/or
6.1.3 Whether it is a valid or enforceable "agreement" under section 203(2)(e)
Employment Rights Act 1996 or a valid or enforceable "contract" under
section 144(4) Equality Act 2010.
6.2 Issue 2
***
6.2.1 Whether the COT3 Agreement settles or waives the Claimant’s claim of
pregnancy/maternity discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The relevant facts are as follows.
Where I have had to resolve any conflict of evidence, I indicate how I have done so at the material point. References to page numbers are to the agreed Bundle of Documents.
8. I have attempted to confine my findings of fact to the issues which are relevant
to the preliminary issues defined above and to avoid any findings of fact which
could affect the outcome of further hearings, where at all possible. My findings
were based only on the documentary and witness evidence before me at the
preliminary hearing. A different Tribunal at a substantive hearing may make
different findings of fact based on evidence which is adduced on the
substantive issues.
9. The Respondent employs around twenty staff members comprising "Stable
Lads and Lasses" amongst other roles.
10. It is run by Eve Houghton (EH). Its Racing Secretary is/was Sarah Scott (SS)
who deals with most of the administration duties for the Respondent and is also
the main point of contact for employees when EH is busy or away. The
Respondent also employs a "Head Lad and Lass" to whom the rest of the
stable yard staff should report for various day-to-day issues.
11. The Claimant, who is currently nineteen years of age, was employed by the
Respondent as a Stable Lass/Work Rider. She had a difficult personal
background. She was primarily brought up by her grandma following social
services involvement in her home life and parental neglect. She had a difficult
relationship with her mother which meant that at the age of sixteen, she needed
to move out of her home.
12. She has learning difficulties although has not been formally diagnosed with any
clinical diagnosis. She left school at the age of thirteen and has no GCSEs or
other academic qualifications. She struggles to understand what she reads.
13. She started working for the Respondent in February 2019 when she was
sixteen. EH was aware of her difficult home life, personal circumstances and
need to leave her family home. As she had been riding horses since a very
early age, she was offered her role. She had no written contract of
employment.
14. Whilst working for the Respondent she completed an apprenticeship as an
Equine Groom. She was encouraged to do that by EH with whom she says
she initially had a good relationship. She did very well, gaining a distinction.
She explained during cross-examination that she took pride in her work did not
find the apprenticeship difficult because there was no academic work required
and most of the activities were practical.
15. The Claimant's take home pay was approximately £280 per week. As part of
her role, she was also provided with shared accommodation on the stable yard.
She lived in the "Stable Bungalow" with another Stable Lass (G) and T, a Stable
Lad.
16. At the beginning of 2021, she began a personal relationship with T. In
approximately June 2021 she became pregnant. The Claimant says that after
her pregnancy, the attitude of EH changed towards her. She said during her
evidence that she thought she regarded her as "useless" when pregnant and
that she didn't want her to live or work there from that point. She suffered with
morning sickness and had problems getting up for the early morning shift and
felt unsafe riding the horses.
17. Her claims and allegations are disputed by the Respondent and I make no
findings of fact about these claims or allegations. EH did not give evidence at
the preliminary hearing.
18. On 29 September 2021, during the evening, there was an incident at the Stable
Bungalow involving the Claimant, T and G.
19. A written statement provided by G the next day [120] reports that she was
woken up the previous night by T kicking the Claimant's door. She told him to
"sort his act out" and she checked on the Claimant. He then hit the window
and the wall with a golf club, breaking it and shouting "look what you have
done" to the Claimant. She then stayed in the living room with the Claimant
until he started shouting again. She eventually fell asleep and T and the
Claimant were still arguing.
20. G reported to the Respondent's office the next morning (30 September 2021)
to tell EH and SS what had happened. She showed them photos of the
damage to the bungalow, presumably on her phone.
21. A written statement from SS [117] states that T was called to the office at 11am
the same morning regarding the incident. He admitted to damaging the
property with the golf club, was suspended and agreed to leave the Stable
Bungalow. The statement from SS notes her duty of care to the Claimant and
to G and that T fully accepted that he was at fault damaging the property and
being violent and intimidating towards other members of staff.
22. The Claimant was working on her early shift when she found out about T's
suspension. She asked permission from the Head Lad to leave her shift early
to go and speak to him before he left. She reports that she was panicking. It
was approximately 11:30 am and her shift was due to finish at 12 noon. She
was given permission to leave by the Head Lad at that point, as confirmed by
a written statement from him [116]. It is the Respondent's case that she said
she would only be five minutes. The Claimant does not remember saying that
but in any event, events were overtaken by what subsequently took place.
23. There was then an altercation at the Stable Bungalow between the Claimant
and SS who had attended there with a colleague whilst he was packing his
possessions ready to leave. A written telephone note from an adviser at the
National Trainers' Federation dated that day reported that SS had telephoned
her to ask for advice and explained that she was concerned about the Claimant
being in the Stable Bungalow with T on her own. She was reportedly "worried
about leaving her with him, concerned to safeguard a vulnerable person" [123].
24. The Claimant's evidence is that she wanted to be left alone to discuss things
with T as he did not have a mobile telephone and she did not know where he
would be going. She was very distressed and anxious, told SS and her
colleague to "fuck off" and then went into a bedroom to get away from them. T
left the Respondent's premises.
25. After this, the Claimant did not feel able to attend her shift again at 4pm. She
sent a text message to SS at 13.05 to advise her of this and stated that she
would be back the following morning. SS replied "OK" [54].
26. At 22.47 that day (30 September 2021) the Claimant texted AH to ask her for
some emergency leave. She apologised for not finishing her shift that day and
provided some explanation about the events of the previous evening. She
asked her to reply by message because "I'm likely to burst into tears" [49].
27. On Friday 1 October 2021, EH replied to the Claimant by text to confirm that
she would agree to one week's leave. She also stated that she wanted the
Claimant to come to a meeting and asked for a written statement of events of
29 September 2021. The Claimant responded the same morning, by text, with
a very brief written statement which basically confirmed the events which were
already known by the Respondent [54].
28. The same afternoon, at 16.14, the Respondent sent the Claimant an invitation
letter to a disciplinary hearing on Monday, 4 October 2021 [52]. It informed her
about three potential allegations of gross misconduct against her and warned
her that the meeting could result in her dismissal. The three allegations stated
were:
28.1 "Unacceptable behaviour by you towards other members of staff in shared
accommodation.
28.2 Walking out of work and leaving your work colleagues in the lurch.
28.3 Taking un-authorised time off".
29. During cross-examination, SS was asked about the allegations in turn. She
admitted preparing the letter and writing the allegations with EH. She knew at
that time that the Claimant was off work because of stress.
30. When asked what was meant by the Claimant's unacceptable behaviour, she
explained that this was bullying of G by her. She was asked to explain any
evidence of this bullying and she could refer to no documentary evidence but
said that she had received a telephone call from G's mother who was worried
about her daughter. She said: "she would have rung me that morning, the day
after [29 September 2021]". She confirmed that she did not take a statement
from G about this although she couldn't explain why. The Claimant disputes
ever having bullied G and, in her evidence, confirmed that she had thought that
G and her were friends. She stated that no one had ever told her of any
allegations that she had bullied G at any time during her employment and that
this hearing was the first time that this had been alleged.
31. I find that, based on the evidence before me in this hearing, there was no
credible evidence of any complaints of bullying by the Claimant against G. The
statement of G that was taken at the time makes no reference to this and is
consistent with a friendly relationship with the Claimant, complaining about T's
violent behaviour and even saying at one point that she "checked on Alex"
before she went to bed. The content and tone of that statement is inconsistent
with any bullying by the Claimant of her.
32. An email from G's mother reports that she was unhappy with and scared of T's
behaviour and goes into significant detail about this but does not mention the
Claimant. Reports of SS made at the time, as set out above, are also
inconsistent with her belief that the Claimant bullied G, stating that the Claimant
was vulnerable and that she owed a duty of care to her. As such, and based
on the witness and documentary evidence in this hearing, I do not believe that
SS and EH had any reasonable basis to allege that the Claimant had bullied G
or that this comprised a credible disciplinary allegation of gross misconduct.
33. With regard to the second and third allegations that the Claimant had walked
out of work and had taken unauthorised time off, SS agreed in cross-
examination that she had been aware at the time of writing the letter of the
Head Lad's statement that he had permitted the Claimant to leave work at
11:30am to go and speak to T at the Stable Bungalow. She said however that
the Head Lad should not have given permission. When asked therefore why
the disciplinary allegation was put to the Claimant rather than to the Head Lad,
she responded "I don't know what to say". She also confirmed being aware of
the permission that EH had given her for a week's leave thereafter.
34. Based on the evidence before me, I do not believe that there was any credible
basis for the disciplinary allegations of gross misconduct that the Claimant had
walked out of work or had taken unauthorised time off. She had permission to
leave work when she did. There is a dispute as to whether she should have
returned to work after leaving at 11:30 as her shift finished at 12 noon but SS
knew where she was at that time as she was concerned about her vulnerability
being in the stable bungalow with T on her own and a return to work would
have only been possible for a few minutes during that time line anyway. Later
that day, the Claimant had texted SS to inform that she would be unable to
return to her shift at 4pm and SS had indicated her agreement by replying "OK".
Thereafter, she had asked EH for emergency leave and this had been agreed.
As such, on this evidence, I do not believe that EH or SS believed these
allegations to amount to potential gross misconduct.
35. At this point (on receipt of the disciplinary hearing invitation letter on 1 October
2021) the Claimant was staying with a friend. The friend's house was near to
the Claimant's stepsister who is a lot older than her. She did some research
on the internet and advised the Claimant to ask for more notice for the
disciplinary hearing and subsequently helped the Claimant to prepare a
response and further text messages to SS and EH over the days that followed.
Her text response that evening asked for a minimum of five days' notice,
provided some further explanation about the events of 29 September 2021 and
confirmed that she had been given permission by the Head Lad to leave her
work on 30 September 2021 [51].
36. SS replied the same evening to agree to rearrange the hearing for 8 October
2021. She also gave the Claimant contact details of a representative from the
National Association of Racing Staff (NARS) [55].
37. On 4 October 2021 the Claimant was in contact with the NARS representative,
sending him some screenshots of previous texts and a copy of the disciplinary
hearing invitation letter. There was some discussion about the Claimant's
pregnancy [73]. She was subsequently advised by him, on 5 October 2021 to
see her doctor and sign off work sick. By way of various text messages and
emails on 7 October 2021, the disciplinary hearing which was arranged for 8
October 2021 was postponed as the NARS rep was unavailable [60 to 63].
38. The same day, the Claimant texted SS to inform her that she was self-certifying
as sick for the following seven days because of stress and anxiety. SS
subsequently agreed with her that she would take those days as holidays
[60/61].
39. On 12 October 2021, early that morning, the Claimant went to the Stable
Bungalow to get some possessions. She was told by G that she was not
allowed into the bungalow on her own. She sent SS a text at 8.47 to ask: "what
is the case with this as I still live there unless I get told otherwise?" [61]. SS
replied sometime later to say: "I'm down a 15 minutes [sic]". Again the Claimant
asked for clarity and was told that SS intended to come and see her. The
Claimant responded to say:
39.1 "if….I'm not allowed there on my own this makes me homeless, I'm 4 months
pregnant and I would need an eviction date with a certain amount of notice
before I have to leave the bungalow" [62].
40. SS replied to say that if she had come into the office "we could have talked".
The Claimant replied that she did not know she was supposed to do that and
that she still didn't understand what was going on [62]. The Claimant then
informed her NARS rep about the situation stating: "I'm really confused
because I didn't get suspended….so as far as I'm aware I still live there but
apparently I'm not aloud [sic] to be there on my own".
41. The Claimant continued to ask SS for clarity about her living accommodation
and she was told by SS later that day (12 October 2021):
41.1 "Hi Alex, currently you are an employee and on sick leave which you are taking
holiday and as soon as you return there will be a formal meeting, I will be
sending you another letter detailing this hearing and what the hearing will be
about" [64].
42. The Claimant alleges that G was told by the Respondent to tell the Claimant
that she was not permitted to enter the Stable Bungalow on her own. When
this was put to SS in cross examination, she did not deny it. I found her
evidence on this issue to be unconvincing and evasive. She explained that G
was there on her own and she (SS) didn't want any sort of confrontation, that
there was only one key to the property and that it was "agreed" that the
Claimant should let "us" know when she was going to attend the property
because G felt uncomfortable with the Claimant there. This is inconsistent with
the Claimant's text that she did not know that she was meant to come into the
office first. SS could provide no explanation about why she did not reassure
the Claimant that she had not been evicted or made homeless, stating "we tried
our best at the time: text is not a good way to communicate".
43. I find that, based on the evidence before me, the Respondent did intend to
restrict the Claimant's access to the Stable Bungalow and did encourage or
authorise G not to allow her in when she went there. After this point, despite
repeated requests from the Claimant, the Respondent did not provide her with
any reassurance or confirmation that she was permitted to enter. I find that the
only reasonable conclusion from this evidence was that the Respondent
wanted the Claimant to believe that she could not enter the Stable Bungalow
after she had left it on 30 September 2021 and did not intend to permit her to
move back in after her period of sickness absence. This may have been, in
whole or in part, out of genuine concern for G but the effect on the Claimant
amounted to the same thing.
44. At 15.43 that day, EH sent the Claimant a second disciplinary hearing invitation
letter [86]. The same allegations of gross misconduct were repeated. The
letter also contained some additional content:
44.1 "an additional matter has now arisen and I am writing to give you advance
notice that I wish to discuss this with you at the hearing. It is not a disciplinary
matter but relates to your personal relationship with [T] who is no longer
employed by us."
45. The letter goes on to refer to T's violence and its effect on other employees,
stating that the Claimant's relationship with him will have a "disproportionate
effect on your ability to carry out your role and for others to have the confidence
in you that is necessary". It then says:
45.1 "For those reasons I believe that we need to bring your employment to an end
as well, and as this will not be a dismissal for gross misconduct then I would
be able to provide a reference confirming your dates of employment and you
would be paid your notice. I would also provide you with a letter to the council
confirming that your employment has ended and that you are required to
vacate your accommodation".
46. She says that she would like to discuss matters with the Claimant at a meeting
at which her dismissal because of her "close connection with [T]" and her
potential dismissal for gross misconduct will be considered and she ends by
saying:
46.1 "However, if you would prefer not to have that discussion with me and accept
the difficulties that your relationship with [T] will cause, then I can issue your
dismissal letter, the letter for the council and pay you your notice straight away".
47. The Claimant sent a copy of this letter to her NARS rep. straight away saying
"I don't really know what it means" [81]. Her evidence is that she was shocked
by it, felt alone and felt blackmailed into splitting up with T or losing her job.
When challenged in cross examination that she had support from her sister,
she said that her sister did not have a clue what to do. She agreed that she
discussed the letter with her NARS rep. but said that he advised her that it
appeared as if EH was going to try to "get rid" of her "any way possible". The
Claimant confirmed that the NARS rep. did say that "pregnant women are the
hardest to get rid of" but that she did not know what he meant by this and that
she regarded it as a passing comment. She denied, when questioned in cross
examination, that she knew that this meant that there was particular legal
protection for pregnant women and said that there was no discussion between
her and her NARS rep. about any link between her pregnancy and the intention
to sack her. I accept her evidence in this regard as I found it credible in all the
circumstances and there was no other evidence to the contrary which was
presented to me.
48. The Claimant's NARS rep. explained that although it was his job to attend a
disciplinary hearing with her, she didn’t want to take the risk of attending it. She
thought that EH had made up her mind that she must leave, that there was no
option of keeping her job, that she had already been evicted and that EH had
"dangled the carrot" of the eviction letter as part of the agreement offered.
49. Less than 24 hours later on 13 October 2021, the Claimant sent a text message
to SS to forward to EH as follows:
49.1 "Dear Eve, thank you for your email, I accept your proposal of which you have
promised to supply me with reference, wages, a letter to the council (could you
PLEASE provide me with a letter to the council at the earliest opportunity as I
am now homeless). I can't live with my mum, I can't live with [T]. I am and
have been sofa surfing for the past 2 weeks, obviously this cannot continue
and winter is drawing near. I am literally homeless. Please could you send
this to my email asap as at the moment I am in band D and I need to be in band
A which is priority housing".
50. She asked for a time and date when she could collect her belongings and those
of T from the Stable Bungalow, thanked EH for everything that she had done
for her and pasted a copy of an email from her council housing team requesting
a copy of her eviction notice [66/67].
51. The following day on 14 October 2021, SS confirmed to the Claimant that EH
had contacted ACAS to conclude a binding agreement which would take a few
days. She explained the purpose of this agreement solely as being that "this
will give you certainty that Eve will give you a reference as promised and also
the letter to the council" [68]. The Claimant again asked when she could collect
some possessions from the Stable Bungalow (she repeated this again on 15
October 2021 saying that she was completely out of clothes). She followed
this with texts to request the position regarding her maternity pay as she did
not know when she would receive her next income and SS confirmed that she
was entitled to statutory sick pay.
52. On 15 October 2021, the Claimant was contacted by ACAS who sent a copy
of a draft COT3 to her, with which the conciliation officer had been provided by
the Respondent's solicitor. He informed her that ACAS do not provide any
legal advice and stated that "I know you want to move this on as quickly as
possible" [93].
53. On the same day at 11.03, the Claimant chased SS for a copy of her eviction
letter. SS replied to state "it will be sent as soon as we have the [ACAS]
agreement" [71].
54. It is clear by this point that all parties are aware that the COT3 agreement
needed to be completed urgently because of the Claimant's desire to obtain a
copy of an eviction letter to send to the council. The Claimant's evidence is
that this was a priority for her and that she believed she would not be able to
obtain it until the COT3 agreement was concluded. ACAS were aware of this
as confirmed by an email from the relevant conciliation officer [113]. This is
consistent with the aforementioned text from SS [71] and an email from the
Respondent's solicitor to ACAS, also on 15 October 2021 [97]. Indeed, SS
confirmed in cross examination that the letter to the council was conditional on
the Claimant accepting a mutual agreement and that this letter would be
needed by the Claimant to show to the council.
55. The Claimant stated that when she told her NARS rep. about the COT3, he
advised her that he wouldn't get involved in any settlement as his role was only
help her keep her job and to attend any disciplinary hearings etc. She therefore
did not send a copy of the agreement to him.
56. The terms of the COT3 agreement state amongst other things that:
56.1 "The Claimant agrees that her employment with the Respondent ended on 15
October 202I and that she will vacate her accommodation at The Bungalow
with effect from that date, The Claimant agrees that all her allegations against
the Respondent submitted to ACAS under Early Conciliation number
NE102694/2I will be considered settled and withdrawn and she may not bring
any Employment Tribunal claim regarding some or all of those allegations
subsequently.
56.2 The Respondent, without admission of liability, agrees to pay the Claimant her
notice of £720 subject to deductions for income tax and employee national
insurance ("the Settlement Sum") within 7 days of the Respondent receiving a
form COT3 incorporating this wording, signed by the Claimant or on her behalf.
56.3 The Claimant agrees to accept the Settlement Sum in full and final settlement
of all and any claims of whatever nature she may have whenever, whether
before or after entering this Agreement which are connected with or arising out
of her employment with the Respondent and/or its termination and made
against the Respondent including but not limited to, her claims under Early
Conciliation number NE 102694/21 and all other claims for which an ACAS
Conciliator has a statutory duty to conciliate on, save for any claim by the
Claimant to enforce this Agreement, any claim relating to latent personal injury
of which she is not currently aware or ought reasonably to be aware of at the
date of signing or in relation to her accrued pension rights. The Claimant
confirms that she is not currently aware of any such claims."
56.4 "The Respondent will, on the date that this agreement becomes legally binding,
send a letter to the council in the terms set out at Appendix 2".
57. Appendix 2 is a letter to the Claimant's local authority housing team confirming
the termination of her employment and the requirement for her to leave her tied
accommodation with immediate effect.
58. The ACAS conciliator went through the terms of the COT3 with the Claimant
over the telephone (the Claimant said this was done quickly). When
questioned in cross examination and by me about what she had been informed
about the COT3 she answered consistently that she didn't understand what he
was explaining. She knew that the agreement was about her leaving and that
it meant that she couldn't be sacked and that she would get the eviction letter.
She said that she did not read the COT3 because she knew that she wouldn't
understand it. She was in a hurry and wanted to sign the COT3 as soon as
possible as the quicker she signed it, the quicker she would get her eviction
letter. She was worried that EH would change her mind and sack her anyway
and she felt blackmailed into signing it. She said that she has/had no idea what
was meant by her "allegations" or "claims" under the early conciliation number
which is noted in the COT3. At the time, she raised no allegations to the
Respondent or to ACAS because it was the Respondent who approached
ACAS in the first place about the agreement and this was so she could leave
with her notice pay, a letter to the council and a reference.
59. SS confirmed in her evidence that she had no involvement in the discussions
with ACAS or with writing the COT3 terms (although she did sign the COT3 on
behalf of the Respondent and was with the Claimant when she did so too). The
COT3 terms were solely handled by the Respondent's solicitor. When
specifically asked whether she was aware whether the Claimant intended to
bring any pregnancy discrimination claims against the Respondent she
confirmed that that she did not know. When asked whether she discussed any
potential claims with EH at the time, she confirmed that she did not and when
specifically referred to the "allegations" and "claims" as stated in the COT3 she
confirmed that there was no discussion about this and that she was not aware
of any claims or allegations at the time.
60. At page 113 in the bundle is an email from the ACAS conciliator to the
Claimant's solicitor who is instructed now, confirming his memory of
discussions regarding the COT3 and his role in assisting the Claimant. He
confirms that the Respondent initiated the matter with ACAS, that both parties
confirmed to him that the matter was "regarding a potential disciplinary process
and dismissal" and that as such, that it was allocated with an internal
jurisdiction of "unfair dismissal". He further states:
60.1 "..although both parties mention that Alex was pregnant, neither party at any
stage told me or gave me the impression that there was any claim or potential
claim for any form of discrimination, including maternity/pregnancy and I had
no reason to bring that subject into any conversation. My understanding was
that both emphasised it to explain the need for a letter to use to assist in
housing".
61. The COT3 was declared binding by ACAS at 15.16 on 15 October 2021, both
parties having confirmed acceptance of its terms.
62. The Claimant and her daughter were rehoused by South Oxfordshire District
Council at their current address on or around August 2022.
Comments