In person For the v Respondent — 2019

Mr Houlihan presented a disability discrimination claim on 28 February 2019. The respondent contended that the claim was barred by a settlement agreement dated 13 September 2017 and, separately, was out of time. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and Ms Berni Good, and considered the GP and counselling records together with the settlement documents and the solicitor’s certificate.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had experienced significant mental and physical difficulties, but it found no evidence that he lacked capacity to enter the agreement. It found that by late July and early August 2017 he was well enough to work from home or on half days, that his GP had directed him towards Citizens’ Advice for work-related advice, and that he could have sought advice if he had wished. It also found that he saw a solicitor, Mr Peter Thibault, and that the solicitor’s certificate confirmed advice on the terms and effect of the agreement and on its effect on claims, including disability discrimination. The agreement included a lump sum of £30,000 and provisions dealing with loans and shares.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the settlement agreement was valid and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claim. It found that the claimant only took action after learning in December 2018 that the business had been sold and after the respondent’s response to his email about his loan notes, which it treated as the catalyst for seeking advice and commencing proceedings.

In the alternative, the tribunal found that the claim was 15 months out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. Applying the just and equitable test, and referring to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre and British Coal v Keeble, it held that the medical evidence did not explain the delay, that the claimant had not acted promptly, and that there was no good reason to extend time. It also noted the prejudice caused by the passage of time, including the loss of key witnesses from the respondent’s workforce.