Mr K Chima v Gold Medal Travel Group Limited — 2023

This was a preliminary strike-out hearing about a new discrimination claim brought by Mr K Chima against Gold Medal Travel Group Limited after an earlier tribunal case had been settled through ACAS by COT3. The particulars of claim alleged direct race discrimination and direct religion and belief discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, said to arise from comments made by Mr James Nelson during the earlier employment dispute. The claimant’s case was that he had not seen the relevant material before he agreed the settlement, and that he had been pressured into accepting the COT3 shortly before the final hearing in the earlier case.

The tribunal accepted, for the purposes of the strike-out application, Mr Chima’s factual case at its highest on issues of timing and knowledge. Even on that basis, Employment Judge Cookson held that the wording of clause 5 of the COT3 was clear enough to cover all claims Mr Chima had or might have in the future, including claims arising from events occurring after the agreement, and that he had no reasonable prospect of arguing that an unknown claim fell outside the waiver. The judge distinguished the EAT decision in Bathgate v Technip UK Ltd on the basis that the agreement in this case was a COT3 entered into with the assistance of an ACAS conciliation officer, so the “particular complaint” issue did not arise in the same way.

The tribunal also rejected the argument that clause 6.2 of the COT3 preserved the claim as a claim for personal injury. It found that Mr Chima had brought a discrimination claim, that personal injury damages may be a remedy in such a case, but that there was no allegation in the pleaded claim of a personal injury which would bring the matter within that carve-out. On the duress point, the tribunal accepted that Mr Chima felt pressure because of the late stage of the settlement discussions, but held that this did not amount to duress or coercion. Applying the guidance in Sphikas & Son v Mr G Porter, the judge found there was no realistic choice problem of the kind required for duress, noting in particular that Mr Chima could have continued to tribunal if he did not wish to settle and that he had not raised duress when later trying to reinstate the earlier claim.

The result was that the tribunal struck out the whole claim under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No remedy was awarded because the claim did not proceed to a merits hearing.