Odu-Obi v Interserve Fm Ltd & Anor (Practice and Procedure : Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke) [2013] UKEAT 0206_13_1605 (16 May 2013)

Odu-Obi v Interserve Fm Ltd & Anor (Practice and Procedure : Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke) [2013] UKEAT 0206_13_1605 (16 May 2013)

The COT3 agreement barred claims arising out of pre-agreement complaints but did not bar the claimant from adducing relevant evidence or criticising the respondent's conduct as context for current claims. Estoppel should not operate to prevent a fair trial, and evidential restrictions must be managed to ensure justice between the parties.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0206_13_1605
Parties
Appellant Counsel: David Stephenson; Respondent Counsel: Elizabeth Cunningham
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Review
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Compromise Agreements, Estoppel, Admissibility of Evidence, Discrimination, Constructive Dismissal
Employment Law Compromise Agreements Estoppel Admissibility of Evidence Discrimination Constructive Dismissal

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Stephenson

Appellant Counsel

Elizabeth Cunningham

Respondent Counsel

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the COT3 compromise agreement bars the claimant from criticising respondent's conduct prior to the agreement date
  2. 2 Whether estoppel or abuse of process prevents the claimant from adducing evidence relating to pre-agreement events
  3. 3 Fairness of evidential restrictions imposed by preliminary hearing judge

Ratio Decidendi

The COT3 agreement barred claims arising out of pre-agreement complaints but did not bar the claimant from adducing relevant evidence or criticising the respondent's conduct as context for current claims. Estoppel should not operate to prevent a fair trial, and evidential restrictions must be managed to ensure justice between the parties.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Claimant may rely on relevant pre-agreement evidence as context for current claims, subject to case management.
  • Respondent entitled to know scope of claimant's evidence; tribunal may make orders requiring notice of evidence.