Ms Zoe Phillips v A. Menarini Farmaceutica International SRL — 2023

The tribunal considered whether a settlement agreement signed on 1 September 2021 barred the claimant's employment tribunal complaints. The claimant had been employed as a UK Senior Brand Manager by A. Menarini Farmaceutica International SRL and had presented complaints described in the claim form as constructive unfair dismissal, age, sex and race discrimination, civil partnership discrimination, and sexual harassment. The claimant said the agreement was invalid because she had been made to sign it under economic duress.

The tribunal accepted much of the claimant's evidence but found that the facts did not show economic duress. It found that the claimant herself had suggested a settlement, that she had 5 days to consider the agreement, and that she had legal advice from a solicitor of her choice as well as earlier CAB advice. It also found that the claimant had a practical alternative of bringing an Employment Tribunal claim. The email saying the terms were not negotiable, and the later text message exchanges, were not found to contain an overt threat that she would receive no payment if she did not sign; the tribunal noted that the respondent later agreed to increase the legal fees from £250 plus VAT to £300 plus VAT.

Applying the authorities it cited on economic duress, including Hennessy v Craigmyle and Co Ltd, Horizon Recruitment Ltd and anor v Vincent, Pao On v Lau Yui Long, and Sphikas & Son v Porter, the tribunal held that there was no illegitimate pressure and no absence of practical choice. It also recorded that there was no dispute that the settlement agreement complied with section 203(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 147(3) Equality Act 2010. The agreement was therefore valid and binding, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, and the claim was dismissed.