Miss R Boampong v LCH Ltd — 2021

At the preliminary hearing, the tribunal addressed whether the claimant could re-run claims already settled in 2016, whether the new Equality Act complaints were in time, and whether she had an employment relationship with the respondents. The earlier case had been settled by a COT3 dated 12 July 2016 for £42,000 less tax on the amount above £30,000; the claimant withdrew that case and it was dismissed.

The tribunal held that the repeated 2016 claims were barred by res judicata and struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. It rejected the claimant's argument that the settlement was invalid for lack of capacity, finding that she understood the basic bargain and that there was no evidence the respondents knew or ought to have known of any incapacity. It also rejected the argument that any alleged breach of the COT3 reopened the settled claims; even if there had been a breach, the proper course would be enforcement of the new agreement, not revival of the original causes of action.

The new Equality Act complaints were held out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It relied on the length of delay, the limited impact of the claimant's health history on her ability to bring the claims sooner, the weakness of the complaints as pleaded, and the prejudice to the respondents. On employment status, the tribunal found that the claimant was engaged as an agency worker and had no contract of employment with the respondents, so claims depending on an employment relationship failed.

The tribunal noted that the tax-payment issue might be pursued elsewhere and said the debt or damages claim under the settlement agreement must fail on the employment-status point, although it invited further representations before deciding whether to strike that claim out.