Settlement agreements

Binding settlement made (unintentionally) in correspondence

A letter from an employer to an employee containing a settlement sum, and a subsequent letter of acceptance from the employee, amounted to a binding settlement despite the absence of a detailed agreement.
Newbury v Sun Microsystems

Indemnity in compromise agreement covered former employee’s criminal legal fees

An indemnity in a compromise agreement obliged an employer to pay the legal costs incurred by a former employee in defending criminal proceedings relating to offences alleged to have been committed during his employment.
Coulson v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Compromise agreements - a cautionary tale

An agreement compromising claims with one employer, on a TUPE transfer, did not release the other two employers from liability. 
Tamang v ACT Security Ltd

Compromise agreements and legal indemnities

A fairly standard indemnity in a compromise agreement did not oblige an employer to pay an ex-employee’s legal expenses associated with a criminal investigation into action allegedly taken by him when he was an employee.
Coulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd

Compromise agreements and the scope of ‘independent legal advice’

The EAT in Scotland has held that compromise agreements entered into by Glasgow City Council to settle equal pay claims prevented the women affected from pursuing those claims, even though their solicitors had not advised whether or not the settlements on offer were a ‘good deal’. There is no obligation on advisers to comment on the potential value of a claim or assess the likelihood of its success – all that is required is that the employee is advised what the terms of the compromise agreement are and what they mean.
McWilliam v Glasgow City Council

NHS compromise agreement for £250K was not unreasonable

The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision that a £250,000 compromise agreement between an NHS Trust and its former Chief Executive was unreasonably generous. The CEO’s good service and likely difficulties in finding future employment were relevant considerations and the High Court had been wrong to disregard them. The Court of Appeal also made some pretty scathing comments about the way that the case had been handled.
Gibb v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »

Page 1 of 2