Longer Reads

Bathgate v. Technip: Case law update

Future, unknown discrimination claims cannot be waived under a settlement agreement

2 minute read

Published 2 December 2022

Authors

Share

Key information

Background

The Claimant was employed by Technip Singapore PTE Limited (the Respondent) as a Chief Officer for some 20 years before agreeing to take voluntary redundancy and enter into a settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement waived the Claimant’s rights to bring past, current and future claims against the Respondent and provided for, among other things, an “additional payment” to be calculated by reference to a collective agreement.

After the settlement agreement was executed, the Respondent decided that the additional payment need not be paid to employees who were 61 or over at the time of dismissal. The Claimant brought a claim alleging that the decision not to pay him this sum constituted either direct or indirect age discrimination.

The Respondent sought to defend the claim on the basis that, by signing the settlement agreement, the Claimant had compromised his right to pursue any further claim.

Post-termination Discrimination

It was undisputed that the discriminatory act took place after the Claimant’s employment had ended.

Section 108 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) permits a former employee to bring a claim if the former employer engages in conduct that would be discriminatory if it had occurred during the employment relationship.

A discrimination claim must normally be brought within three months of the discriminatory act. This time limit applies both during and after employment. However, if an individual does not discover an act of discrimination until well after the event, the Tribunal may extend the deadline on just and equitable grounds.

Employment Tribunal Decision

The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant had signed away his right to sue for age discrimination under the settlement agreement.

The Claimant appealed against this decision on the ground that s. 147 of the Act prevented the settlement of claims before their existence was known.

Appeal

For a settlement agreement to validly settle claims under the Equality Act 2010, the agreement must relate to “the particular complaint” (s. 147 of the Act).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the statutory meaning of “the particular complaint” did not permit the settlement of a claim whose existence was unknown at the time the Claimant left employment.

In this case, the Respondent’s decision not to pay the additional sum because of the Claimant’s age had not been made when the agreement was signed. Although the settlement agreement referred to a “long list of claims”, this was not sufficient to settle any future complaint of age discrimination.

It would be contrary to parliamentary intention, in the view of Lord Summers, to enable parties to settle a complaint under the Act that may or may not occur at some point in the future.

The EAT also suggested that the common practice of including in a settlement agreement a waiver “which lists a variety of possible claims by reference to their nature or section number” may also be incompatible with the language of s. 147.

While noting that this conclusion may be “inconvenient” where there is a mutual desire to avoid future claims and to end the employment relationship permanently, the EAT found that to allow settlement of the sort seen in this case would run contrary to Parliament’s intention.

However, as the Claimant worked outside UK and EEA waters on a Bahamas registered ship, the EAT ultimately decided that the Claimant’s claim could not succeed because he was not subject to the Act’s jurisdiction. Since the Claimant had no right to claim for age discrimination during employment, he did not acquire that right after his employment ended.

Implication

The ability to settle unknown future claims and the practice of waiving potential claims by way of generic description or statutory reference has been cast into some doubt by the EAT’s decision in Bathgate v. Technip.

Employers should be aware of the potential litigation risk relating to the scope of a settlement agreement waiver. It would be advisable to explicitly set out, in as much detail as possible, the specific complaints being settled to ensure they are captured by the settlement agreement. It may also be prudent to include some form of warranty that the employee is unaware of, and has no intention of bringing, any additional claims.

Related latest updates
PREV NEXT

Related content

Arrow Back to Insights

Longer Reads

Bathgate v. Technip: Case law update

Future, unknown discrimination claims cannot be waived under a settlement agreement

Published 2 December 2022

Associated sectors / services

  • Employment law for employees
  • Employment law for employers

Authors

Background

The Claimant was employed by Technip Singapore PTE Limited (the Respondent) as a Chief Officer for some 20 years before agreeing to take voluntary redundancy and enter into a settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement waived the Claimant’s rights to bring past, current and future claims against the Respondent and provided for, among other things, an “additional payment” to be calculated by reference to a collective agreement.

After the settlement agreement was executed, the Respondent decided that the additional payment need not be paid to employees who were 61 or over at the time of dismissal. The Claimant brought a claim alleging that the decision not to pay him this sum constituted either direct or indirect age discrimination.

The Respondent sought to defend the claim on the basis that, by signing the settlement agreement, the Claimant had compromised his right to pursue any further claim.

Post-termination Discrimination

It was undisputed that the discriminatory act took place after the Claimant’s employment had ended.

Section 108 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) permits a former employee to bring a claim if the former employer engages in conduct that would be discriminatory if it had occurred during the employment relationship.

A discrimination claim must normally be brought within three months of the discriminatory act. This time limit applies both during and after employment. However, if an individual does not discover an act of discrimination until well after the event, the Tribunal may extend the deadline on just and equitable grounds.

Employment Tribunal Decision

The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant had signed away his right to sue for age discrimination under the settlement agreement.

The Claimant appealed against this decision on the ground that s. 147 of the Act prevented the settlement of claims before their existence was known.

Appeal

For a settlement agreement to validly settle claims under the Equality Act 2010, the agreement must relate to “the particular complaint” (s. 147 of the Act).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the statutory meaning of “the particular complaint” did not permit the settlement of a claim whose existence was unknown at the time the Claimant left employment.

In this case, the Respondent’s decision not to pay the additional sum because of the Claimant’s age had not been made when the agreement was signed. Although the settlement agreement referred to a “long list of claims”, this was not sufficient to settle any future complaint of age discrimination.

It would be contrary to parliamentary intention, in the view of Lord Summers, to enable parties to settle a complaint under the Act that may or may not occur at some point in the future.

The EAT also suggested that the common practice of including in a settlement agreement a waiver “which lists a variety of possible claims by reference to their nature or section number” may also be incompatible with the language of s. 147.

While noting that this conclusion may be “inconvenient” where there is a mutual desire to avoid future claims and to end the employment relationship permanently, the EAT found that to allow settlement of the sort seen in this case would run contrary to Parliament’s intention.

However, as the Claimant worked outside UK and EEA waters on a Bahamas registered ship, the EAT ultimately decided that the Claimant’s claim could not succeed because he was not subject to the Act’s jurisdiction. Since the Claimant had no right to claim for age discrimination during employment, he did not acquire that right after his employment ended.

Implication

The ability to settle unknown future claims and the practice of waiving potential claims by way of generic description or statutory reference has been cast into some doubt by the EAT’s decision in Bathgate v. Technip.

Employers should be aware of the potential litigation risk relating to the scope of a settlement agreement waiver. It would be advisable to explicitly set out, in as much detail as possible, the specific complaints being settled to ensure they are captured by the settlement agreement. It may also be prudent to include some form of warranty that the employee is unaware of, and has no intention of bringing, any additional claims.

Associated sectors / services

  • Employment law for employees
  • Employment law for employers

Authors

Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.

    Subscribe

    Please add your details and your areas of interest below

    Specialist sectors:

    Legal services:

    Other information:

    Jurisdictions of interest to you (other than UK):



    Article contributor

    Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?

    Subscribe to our articles

    Message us on WhatsApp (calling not available)

    Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.

    I accept Close

    Close
    Scroll up

    Find out about Business

    Find out about Dispute Resolution

    Find out about Individuals & Families

    Find out about Real Estate

    We are Collyer Bristow - The law firm for those that
    value individuality, creativity and collaboration.

    Legal & Pricing info Regulatory InformationAccessibilitySitemapPricing and service information

    Listen to our latest podcast: Budget Miniseries: Impacts on Families with US Connections (Part 1)

    Listen to our latest podcast: Cracking the Code on Directors’ Service Agreements

    Read our latest article: Economist, or just economical with the truth? How can employers respond to ‘fake claims’ on a CV?

    Listen to our latest podcast: Autumn Budget 2024 Special (Part 2)

    Read our latest article: ‘Promoting the integrity of the register’: The new Companies House approach to non-compliance

    ExpandNeed some help?Toggle

    < Back to menu

    I have an issue and need your help

    Scroll to see our A-Z list of expertise

    Get in touch

    Get in touch using our form below.



      Business Close
      Private Wealth Close
      Hot Topics Close