Mrs S Johanson v Howserv Limited — 2025

The tribunal heard a preliminary issue only: whether a binding ACAS conciliated settlement agreement had been reached between Mrs S Johanson and Howserv Limited so as to prevent her claims of age discrimination, disability discrimination and unfair dismissal from proceeding. The claimant argued that there had been no conversation on 10 January 2025 leading to agreement, or alternatively that she had not consented to the proposed terms. Other arguments in the papers, including undue influence, lack of capacity and misrepresentation, were not pursued at the hearing.

The tribunal accepted that there had been a course of negotiation through ACAS, with Mr Mullen conveying offers and counter-offers between the parties. It found that the claimant made a final offer to settle for five months' salary and a reference, that the respondent accepted that offer, and that the claimant had read the email of 9 January 2025 which stated that a draft agreement was not yet final and that acceptance by phone or email would make it legally binding. The tribunal also found that a telephone call took place on 10 January 2025.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that she did not agree to the settlement terms in that call. It found that the documentary record and the parties' subsequent actions were consistent with her having signalled agreement, and that ACAS then emailed both parties at 16:50 on 10 January 2025 confirming that a legally binding agreement was in place and attaching the final COT3. The claimant's later ACAS complaint focused on alleged misleading advice from Mr Mullen, rather than on an assertion that no agreement had been reached.

Applying ordinary contractual principles and the statutory provisions governing ACAS conciliated settlements, including section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 144 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that a binding settlement agreement had been reached on 10 January 2025. It concluded that the agreement validly prevented the claimant from instituting tribunal proceedings in relation to the matters covered, that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, and that the claim in case number 2600203/2025 was dismissed. No merits findings or monetary remedy were made.