Mr M Sprack, counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant applied for a postponement because of an acute deterioration in mental health linked to the Gaza conflict. The tribunal accepted that she was unwell and not able to take instructions or give evidence, but refused the postponement after applying the broad discretion in Teinaz v LB Wandsworth and the guidance in O'Cathail v Transport for London. It also took into account that her legal advisers had known by November 2023 that the Reindorf report had been received in September 2022, and that she still had the County Court route to enforce the COT3 agreement.

The claimant argued that the COT3 should be set aside for undue influence because the University had not disclosed the outcome of the investigation or the report before settlement. The tribunal referred to RBS v Etridge (No 2), Jennings v Cairns, Progress Bulk Carriers, Cheese v Thomas, Moxon v Payne and DSND Subsea in considering that argument. It accepted that the point was arguable, but described it as weak, treated affirmation as a significant hurdle, and was not persuaded that any influence was continuing merely because the report had not been disclosed.

On the strike-out application, the tribunal held that Claims One and Two, concerning the appointment of Akua Reindorf KC and the continuation of the investigation, were compromised by the COT3 agreement dated 14 October 2022. It relied on clauses 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 8, and found that the claimant knew the investigation was ongoing when she entered into the agreement and that the agreement closed pending investigations and disciplinary procedures.

The tribunal also struck out Claim Three, concerning contact with the Jewish Chronicle, and Claim Four, concerning refusal to provide the report. It held that clause 2.1.2 was clear enough to compromise future claims, relying on Investors Compensation Scheme, BCCI v Ali, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital v Howard, Arvunescu v Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd, Bathgate v Technip Singapore PTE Ltd and Sheriff and Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd. It rejected the arguments about associated companies, personal injury and severability, and concluded that all of the claims were struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.