Case 6001795/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Luhar v Merrill Lynch International Sitting at: London Central (by CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001795/2025
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicklin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Luhar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination based on race, sex, and disability discrimination by association after his employment ended on 22 August 2024. The respondent applied to strike out the claim on the basis that the claimant had signed a settlement agreement on that date which compromised the claims.
The tribunal considered the statutory requirements for a settlement agreement under section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the related Equality Act 2010 provisions. It found that the agreement was in writing, related to the relevant proceedings, identified the independent adviser, included confirmation of advice and insurance, and stated that the statutory conditions had been satisfied.
The claimant argued that he was not bound by the agreement because he had signed under economic duress connected with extended medical cover. The tribunal found that he had no reasonable prospect of establishing an illegitimate threat or that the settlement agreement was unenforceable, and struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(a) of the 2024 Rules.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because the tribunal found it had been compromised by a binding settlement agreement. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the discrimination complaint; it struck out the claim because it found the settlement agreement barred the proceedings. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the discrimination complaint; it struck out the claim because it found the settlement agreement barred the proceedings. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment describes this as disability discrimination by association. The tribunal did not adjudicate the merits and struck out the claim because it found the settlement agreement barred the proceedings. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 203 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 144 and 147 Equality Act 2010
- economic duress
- Hennessy v Craigmyle & Co Ltd [1986] ICR 461
- Times Travel (UK) Limited and Anr v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation [2021] UKSC 40
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union [2001] UKHL 14
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126
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.