Ms Filoteea Maria Bob v Abbey Pynford Ltd — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge R S Drake sitting alone. The claimant, Ms Filoteea Maria Bob, brought claims of sex discrimination and breach of the right to equal pay against Abbey Pynford Ltd. The tribunal considered the ET1, the claimant’s grievance letter dated 14 June 2022, and a Settlement Agreement dated 28 April 2022.

The tribunal found that the Settlement Agreement met the requirements for a binding compromise of the relevant Equality Act claims, including the statutory requirements in s.147 Equality Act 2010. It recorded that the claimant had received independent legal advice before entering the agreement, that the agreement was in writing and identified the adviser, and that the agreement covered the complaints being raised. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s case that the claims in the ET1 and earlier grievance complaints had been foreshadowed before the settlement was signed.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s attempt to withdraw from the Settlement Agreement, holding that it could not be unilaterally resiled from in law and that the respondent did not consent to any withdrawal. It also found that any post-settlement matters relied on by the claimant were not pleaded with sufficient particularity in the ET1 to amount to independent Equality Act causes of action, and that raising them afresh would in any event have required amendment outside the three-month time limit in s.123 EqA, with no basis for an extension shown.

Applying Rule 37(1)(a), the tribunal concluded that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success because they were already compromised and beyond jurisdiction. It referred to Chandhok v Tirkey, Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore, and Swain v Hillman in explaining the approach to the ET1, amendment, and the realistic-versus-fanciful prospect test. The sex discrimination and equal pay claims were struck out, and the tribunal stated that it therefore had no alternative but to dismiss the claim.