ET Gets More Power
I’m not talking about the character from the Spielberg film, but our very own Employment Tribunals. They were created back in 1971 by statute and what they can and can’t do is governed by legislation. Over the intervening years since coming into being there have been many cases where one party or other has tried to push those boundaries, not always successfully.
However, late last year there was just such a case: Industrious Limited v Vincent and it concerned the enforceability of a compromise agreement when the employer had allegedly misled the former employee. Mrs Vincent entered into a compromise agreement with her employers, the effect of which would have been to prevent her from bringing any further claims against Industrious arising out of her employment or the termination of her employment. Having signed the agreement Mrs Vincent then had cause to consider that Industrious had misled her before she signed the compromise agreement and she applied to the Employment Tribunal to have it set aside on the basis of misrepresentation by her employers.
The misrepresentation can be to do with anything related to the agreement, provided the Claimant can show that he/she entered into the compromise agreement on the basis of the (mis)representation of the employer. For instance, an employee who is told her role is redundant and signs a compromise agreement on this basis might be able to set it aside if she subsequently discovers that another person has been put into the very same role, meaning that there was no redundancy situation at all.
It has always been understood that a compromise agreement can be set aside for misrepresentation but, until this case, it was thought that the ET was unable to hear it and the Claimant seeking to set a compromise agreement aside would have to apply to the County or High Court. Industrious v Vincent makes it clear that the ET does have jurisdiction to hear such claims. Although these types of claim are not that common, it is an important case because it is easier and cheaper for a Claimant to sue in the ET than in the Courts and it also means that because each side will bear their own legal costs, the Claimant is not subject to the costs risk of having to pay the other side’s costs if they lose.
If we can assist you in respect of a compromise agreement or misrepresentation is alleged (whether you are an employer or employee) please do not hesitate to contact me on 0207 464 8433 or email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Michael Scutt