Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Hinton v University of East London
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (22 October 2004)

Issues

(1) Unfair dismissal
(2) Protected disclosure
(3) Compromise Agreement

Facts

Dr Hinton was employed as a Lecturer at the University of East London in its Cultural Studies Department from 1st January 1995 to 31st July 2003. During his employment he raised three separate grievances that amounted to protected disclosures under Section 47B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1986. In January 2003 Dr Hinton took voluntary redundancy and entered into a Compromise Agreement with his employer. The Agreement had been prepared by the University’s Personnel Manager and provided that “all outstanding claims which the employee has or may have arising out of or in connection with or as a consequence of his employment and/or the termination of his employment or otherwise against [the employer] including in particular those statutory complaints which the employee intimates in this Agreement” would be compromised. The Agreement went on to list a number of possible claims Dr Hinton could make but did not include protected disclosure claims.

In October 2003 Dr Hinton commenced proceedings alleging that he had suffered detriments as a result of making protected disclosures contrary to Section 47B(1).

At first instance the Employment Tribunal found that the Compromise Agreement did not preclude him from pursuing his complaints. The University appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

The EAT had to consider the following issues:-

1. Whether Compromise Agreements must specify the precise claims being settled; and

2. Whether the particular Compromise Agreement did or did not include claims under Section 47B.

The University argued that it was not necessary to specify each claim being settled and that the claims listed in the Agreement were not intended to be an exhaustive list.

Decision

The EAT allowed the University’s appeal. Dr Hinton was barred from bringing his claim because the protected disclosure claim, although not listed, fell within the general wording at the beginning of the clause. The EAT stated that what was required is that the claim must have been raised in proceedings or correspondence prior to the Compromise Agreement being entered into.

Comments

This case highlights that when drafting Compromise Agreements employers should ensure that the wording is wide enough to cover all claims that are capable of being compromised (namely those which have been raised in correspondence or in proceedings). It can be helpful to list the most common types of claims which the employee involved potentially may have, but care must be taken to ensure that such a list does not have the effect of limiting the claims which are compromised to those specifically listed.