Miss R Tuck, King’s Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, detriment for protected disclosures, race and/or religious discrimination, and unlawful deduction from wages. The respondent contended the claims had been compromised by Settlement Agreements dated 10 June 2022 and 16 June 2023, entered into in connection with a clinical remediation secondment to Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. The claimant argued the agreements were procured by economic duress because the settlement was linked to the secondment he needed to revalidate his practice.

The judge found that the claimant had received extensive advice from the BMA, the MDU and an independent solicitor before signing the agreements, and that at no point during the negotiations had any suggestion of duress been raised. Applying the three-element test for economic duress, the judge concluded there had been no illegitimate threat or pressure by the respondent, that no such pressure had caused the claimant to enter the contract, and that the claimant had reasonable alternatives available, including resigning and bringing tribunal proceedings.

The judge concluded that the Settlement Agreements were valid and had compromised the claimant's statutory claims. The Tribunal therefore did not have jurisdiction, and all the claimant's claims were dismissed. No remedies were awarded; the monetary figures appearing in the judgment relate to the respondent's expenditure on the secondment and locum cover, not to any tribunal award.