Sutherland v Network Appliance Ltd & Anor [2000] UKEAT 1391_99_1505 (15 May 2000)

Sutherland v Network Appliance Ltd & Anor [2000] UKEAT 1391_99_1505 (15 May 2000)

A compromise agreement that does not comply with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is void only to the extent that it purports to exclude or limit statutory rights; the remainder, including compromise of contractual claims, remains enforceable if severable. The Tribunal was correct to find it had no jurisdiction over the contractual claims, and the agreement was not void for ambiguity.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 1391_99_1505
Parties
Appellant: John Sutherland; Respondent: Network Appliance Ltd; Respondent: Network Appliance Inc
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compromise Agreements, Section 203 Employment Rights Act 1996, Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal, Severability of Contractual Provisions
Employment Law Contract Law Compromise Agreements Section 203 Employment Rights Act 1996 Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal Severability of Contractual Provisions

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Sutherland

Appellant

Network Appliance Ltd

Respondent

Network Appliance Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a compromise agreement not complying with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is wholly void or only void to the extent it offends section 203
  2. 2 Whether contractual and statutory claims in a compromise agreement are severable
  3. 3 Whether ambiguity in the compromise agreement invalidates the contract

Ratio Decidendi

A compromise agreement that does not comply with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is void only to the extent that it purports to exclude or limit statutory rights; the remainder, including compromise of contractual claims, remains enforceable if severable. The Tribunal was correct to find it had no jurisdiction over the contractual claims, and the agreement was not void for ambiguity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.