McLean v. TLC Marketing Plc & Ors [2008] UKEAT 0429_08_0512 (5 December 2008)

McLean v. TLC Marketing Plc & Ors [2008] UKEAT 0429_08_0512 (5 December 2008)

The COT3 agreement did not use sufficiently clear language to preclude claims arising from events after its execution; therefore, Ms McLean's victimisation claim based on post-agreement events is not barred.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0429_08_0512
Parties
Appellant: Ms McLean; Respondents: TLC Marketing Plc and three named individuals
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Employment Judge's Decision and Refusal of Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Compromise Agreements, Victimisation, Jurisdiction, Sex Discrimination, COT3 Agreements
Employment Law Contract Law Equality Law Compromise Agreements Victimisation Jurisdiction Sex Discrimination COT3 Agreements

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms McLean

Appellant

TLC Marketing Plc and three named individuals

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Employment Judge's Decision and Refusal of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a COT3 agreement precludes post-termination and post-agreement victimisation claims under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  2. 2 Proper construction of Clause 1 of the COT3 agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The COT3 agreement did not use sufficiently clear language to preclude claims arising from events after its execution; therefore, Ms McLean's victimisation claim based on post-agreement events is not barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • The appeal against the refusal to accept the Employment Tribunal claim for victimisation is allowed and remitted for consideration on its merits.
  • The appeal against the refusal to review is dismissed.