Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Hinton v University of East London. Court of Appeal - (06 May 2005)

Issues

(1) Dismissal
(2) Compromise Agreements
(3) Protected disclosure

Facts

Dr David Hinton had been the principal lecturer in cultural studies at the University, from January 1995 to July 2003. During his employment, he raised grievances which amounted to protected disclosures. He took voluntary retirement in summer 2003, and signed a compromise agreement drafted by the University. Compromise agreements are used to settle employment disputes, protecting employers from litigation. In turn, the employee accepts a payment from the employer in exchange for waiving a list of claims against the employer. In this case, the agreement referred to a long list of claims, some of which were not directly relevant to Dr Hinton’s claim. The agreement made no mention of the whistle blowing claim which he felt he had against the University.

As Dr Hinton believed that his whistle blowing claim was not waived, he made a claim to the Employment Tribunal. He was of the view that he had been subject to a detriment because he had made a protected disclosure. At first instance, the Tribunal said that claim could proceed because the agreement did not make specific mention of the claim.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed, finding that the claim was included in the agreement by the University’s use of a catch all clause which stated that the agreement was in full and final settlement of all claims Dr Hinton may have, “including in particular” the claims listed.

Dr Hinton appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Decision

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the EAT. It reiterated that employment rights could only be waiver if strict conditions, imposed by law, were complied with. This meant that all the claims to be waived had to be listed, either by generic reference or to a section in the relevant statute.

It went on to state that simply listing all the claims known to the law would not be effective. Careful thought must be given to the claims which might be relevant and then expressly set out.

Comments

This case highlights the need for careful thought to be given when drafting such agreements, and that an improperly adapted standard document would be ineffective. The agreement must set out the exact terms agreed, and the precise claims which are being compromised.

Rachel Bickle – Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it