Charles Melvin Bathgate v Technip UK Limited & Ors

Charles Melvin Bathgate v Technip UK Limited & Ors

A settlement agreement cannot lawfully settle a claim for age discrimination under s.147 Equality Act 2010 before the cause of action arises or is known. However, the Employment Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claimant was a seafarer working outside UK and EEA waters, and s.81 and the relevant regulations excluded his claim both during and after employment.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Charles Melvin Bathgate; Respondent: Technip UK Limited; Respondent: Technip FMC PLC; Respondent: Technip Singapore PTE Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
appeal and cross-appeal both allowed in part; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Settlement Agreements, Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal, Seafarers and Territorial Scope
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Age Discrimination Settlement Agreements Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal Seafarers and Territorial Scope

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Charles Melvin Bathgate

Appellant

Technip UK Limited

Respondent

Technip FMC PLC

Respondent

Technip Singapore PTE Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a settlement agreement can lawfully settle a claim for age discrimination before the cause of action arises under s.147 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim given the claimant's status as a seafarer and the territorial scope provisions

Ratio Decidendi

A settlement agreement cannot lawfully settle a claim for age discrimination under s.147 Equality Act 2010 before the cause of action arises or is known. However, the Employment Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claimant was a seafarer working outside UK and EEA waters, and s.81 and the relevant regulations excluded his claim both during and after employment.

Court Disposition

appeal and cross-appeal both allowed in part; claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's appeal on the validity of the settlement agreement is allowed; the agreement was void under s.147 Equality Act 2010.
  • The respondents' cross-appeal on jurisdiction is allowed; the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the claim is dismissed.