Case 2600225/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Napier v Churchills International Consulting Limited and 1 other — 2017
- Case reference
- 2600225/2017
- Decision date
- 19 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss A Napier
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 24 August 2017, Employment Judge Britton, sitting alone in Nottingham, considered whether two telephone conversations on 6 January 2017 between Miss A Napier and Greg Cheshire for the respondents were admissible at the forthcoming hearing. The judge accepted that there was already an extant dispute, including complaints of sexual discrimination and harassment and a proposed constructive unfair dismissal claim, and held that the first conversation was plainly a without prejudice settlement discussion. The second conversation, after Mr Cheshire had taken instructions from Mr Meagher, was treated in the same way.
The judge found that the matters raised by Mr Cheshire in the second discussion, including concerns about alleged engineering sales, insurance discounts, possible misuse of a company credit card, and a reference to possible FCA non-compliance, were part of the negotiation context and not conduct falling within the exception for unambiguous impropriety. Applying the without prejudice rule as summarised in Woodward v Santander UK Plc and considering the cited authorities, he held that the threshold for admitting otherwise privileged negotiations had not been met.
The judge then considered s111A ERA 1996 and the ACAS Code of Practice on Settlement Agreements. He held that the discussions were pre-termination negotiations within the section, but that the respondents' conduct was not improper for the purposes of s111A(4). He found that Mr Cheshire did not say the claimant would be dismissed if she returned to work; rather, he set out a preliminary position, said the matters would need investigation, and indicated that suspension or a disciplinary process might follow. He rejected the argument that the exchanges amounted to bullying, intimidation, or other improper pressure.
The result was that the two conversations were ruled inadmissible. The judge also ordered the claimant to file an amended claim deleting references to the without prejudice negotiations, and the respondents to serve an amended response after that. He recused himself from presiding at the later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Preliminary hearing only; the tribunal did not decide the merits of the constructive unfair dismissal claim. The ruling held that two 6 January 2017 conversations were inadmissible under the without prejudice rule and s111A ERA 1996, subject to the points addressed in the reasons. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing only; the tribunal did not determine liability on the sex discrimination claim. The ruling concerned whether the same 6 January 2017 settlement discussions could be relied on, and held that they were inadmissible under the without prejudice rule. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- without prejudice rule
- s111A ERA 1996
- unambiguous impropriety
- ACAS Code of Practice 4 Settlement Agreements
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.