Mr Clayton De Beauville v Hertsmere Borough Council — 2017

At the preliminary hearing on 22 October 2019, Employment Judge Alliott considered Mr Clayton De Beauville's claims against Hertsmere Borough Council arising out of his employment and a settlement agreement signed on or about 20 December 2017. The claimant had been employed as a research monitoring officer and his employment ended on 31 January 2019. The tribunal accepted that it had jurisdiction over the contractual aspect because the alleged obligation arose out of the employment and was outstanding on termination, but it noted that the settlement agreement was intended to be a full and final settlement and that the claimant had signed it with independent legal advice.

The claimant said that before the agreement was signed there had been discussions about redundancy, an alternative role, and payments including £64,000, and he advanced the case on the basis that he had either been promised that sum or could cancel the settlement agreement after completing his MA. The tribunal made no finding that £64,000 had in fact been offered. It held that any argument based on a collateral contract, misrepresentation, or prior negotiations had no reasonable prospect of success because those matters pre-dated the agreement, the agreement contained an entire agreement clause, and the claimant had independent legal advice on its terms and effect.

The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and contractual claim for £64,000 under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success. It also dealt with the respondent's counterclaim for return of £7,600 paid for tuition and subsistence, which was said to arise under clauses 16.1 and 16.2 of the settlement agreement. The tribunal held that the repayment provision operated as a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss and dismissed the counterclaim.

Following the strike-out of the claimant's claims, the tribunal considered the respondent's costs application. Taking account of the claimant's litigant-in-person status, his means, and the circumstances of the case, it ordered him to pay the respondent costs assessed at £2,000.