Case 1804264/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Faller v Parallax Agency Ltd Heard by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1804264/2023
- Decision date
- 19 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Faller
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Faller had worked for Parallax Agency Ltd as client services director since 1 January 2011. He and the respondent signed a settlement agreement on 23 January 2023, and the employment ended on 28 February 2023. The tribunal found that the agreement was valid and enforceable, and that the claimant had legal advice satisfying the requirements of section 203 ERA 1996 and section 147 Equality Act 2010. The agreement expressly included claims for unfair dismissal and disability-related Equality Act claims in Schedule 1.
The claimant argued that the respondent breached the agreement by stopping his BUPA cover from 1 February 2023 to 28 February 2023 while he was still employed. The tribunal found that the cancellation was an oversight. On 3 April 2023 Mr Dudley accepted the error and offered reimbursement of costs normally covered by BUPA, initially up to £2,000 and later up to £2,500 against receipts. The tribunal found that the claimant delayed raising the matter, had already made his own arrangements with BUPA, described the problem as not serious before fully identifying it, and did not produce receipts or evidence to support his claimed legal fees.
Applying section 203 ERA 1996, sections 144 and 147 Equality Act 2010, and the Hong Kong Fir / Kawasaki approach to whether the breach went to the root of the contract, the tribunal held that the BUPA issue did not deprive the respondent of substantially the whole benefit of the settlement agreement. The agreement therefore remained effective to bar the constructive unfair dismissal claim and the disability-related Equality Act claims, which were dismissed. The breach of contract claim was not determined at this hearing and was listed for a further preliminary hearing on 2 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the settlement agreement dated 23 January 2023 prevented jurisdiction over the constructive unfair dismissal claim. The claimant relied on the temporary stoppage of BUPA cover, but the tribunal found that issue did not go to the root of the agreement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability-related Equality Act claims listed in Schedule 1, including direct or indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments, were held to be waived by the settlement agreement. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim was part of the disability-related Equality Act claims covered by the settlement agreement and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim was part of the disability-related Equality Act claims covered by the settlement agreement and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.203 ERA 1996
- s.144 Equality Act 2010
- s.147 Equality Act 2010
- Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.