Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Claimant’s Case Based on Valid Settlement Agreement

OUTCOME: Struck Out

Case Number: 3302627/2025, 3302585/2025 3302654/2025, 6044961/2025

Page 1 of 10

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Dr [NAME]

Ms [NAME]

[NAME] at:

Watford On: 8 April 2026

Before:

Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto

Representation Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

JUDGMENT

The claimant’s complaints against the respondents are struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure on the grounds that the claims have no reasonable prospect of success.

REASONS 1. The claimant was employed by West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust from June 2014 to August 2024.

2. On 1 February 2024, the claimant states that he made a protected disclosure at a Trust Board meeting when he raised concerns about Black mortality rates and systemic discrimination against ethnic minority staff.

3. In a letter dated 16 February 2024, Dr [NAME], Chief Executive of the Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Board, wrote to [NAME], Chief Executive of West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, stating that there had been increasing concerns about “the transparency of WHHT’s financial position” and that she had lost confidence in the leadership of the financial function within the Trust. The claimant considers that the letter contained serious allegations about his performance. The claim against Dr [NAME] is based on the letter of 16 February 2024. Dr [NAME] is not an employee of West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

4. The claimant’s cases against Ms [APPELLANT], [NAME], and Dr [NAME], Chief Medical Officer, arise from a letter written on

Page 2 of 10

22 February 2024, which began with the following sentence: “On behalf of the [COMPANY], we are formally writing to you to express our concerns regarding the Chief [NAME], Mr [NAME] [APPELLANT].” The letter goes on to state that “he has increasingly disregarded our concerns that his plan to restore financial stability would be at the cost of patient safety… he continues to deride logical assessment of the establishment required to deliver safe care.” The claimant considers that the letter misrepresented his role in proposing staffing reductions. The letter concluded with the following statement: “We therefore have no choice but to inform you that we have no confidence in his ability to remain as the Chief [NAME] of our Trust.”

5. On 29 February 2024, the claimant contends that the [NAME] of the Trust referred to the letters as the basis for stating that the claimant’s position was “untenable.”

6. On 11 June 2024, the claimant entered into a settlement agreement with the Trust and seven others. The settlement agreement purported to compromise claims against the respondents that are said to arise from acts or omissions that occurred before 11 June 2024 and that are said to arise from acts or omissions that occurred after 11 June 2024.

7. Details of the claimant’s departure from the Trust were publicised in the Health Service Journal on 23 July 2024.

8. The claimant has now brought Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Trust—West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust—and three of the other parties to the settlement agreement: Dr [NAME], Ms [APPELLANT], and Dr [APPELLANT]. The respondents deny the claimant’s complaints of race discrimination and detriment because of making a protected disclosure.

9. The respondents contend that the claims should be struck out or dismissed because, insofar as they relate to matters alleged to have occurred on or before 11 June 2024, they have been settled pursuant to a settlement agreement that satisfies the conditions regulating such agreements under section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”) and section 147 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”). They argue that there is no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that the agreement can be avoided by reason of fraudulent misrepresentation or otherwise. Alternatively, insofar as the claims relate to matters alleged to have occurred on or before 19 November 2024, they are out of time and there are no grounds for extending the applicable time limits; and insofar as the claims relate to matters alleged to have occurred after those dates, they have no reasonable prospect of success.

10. The claimant contests the respondents’ strike-out application and seeks an order permitting him to amend the claim, as well as orders for specific disclosure.

11. This is a preliminary hearing. I have heard no evidence. The respondents apply to strike out the claim. The claimant submits that the claim should not

Page 3 of 10

be struck out because he will contend that the settlement agreement is vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation and economic duress.

The claim against Dr [NAME]

12. The claim against Dr [NAME] has not been pleaded in a way that permits a conclusion that she has committed an act made unlawful by the Equality Act 2010 and within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal. The claimant states that Dr [APPELLANT] letter was used to exert undue pressure on him to resign from his position. The claimant further asserts that the letter constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation designed to cause harm. It is also alleged that Dr [NAME] failed to act with integrity and objectivity and that the rationale for her actions was “prejudice or bias.”

13. The claimant has not articulated a basis for a claim within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal. He states in the claim form that:

“The [NAME] has a close relationship with West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust as its ‘host’ commissioner and lead organisation for the [NAME] within which the Trust operates. If [NAME] claims no direct employment relationship, this is not a relevant defence. I understand that Tribunals consider the complex relationships and influence within NHS structures to hold parties accountable even where traditional employment relationships do not exist.”

14. To bring a workplace discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010, there must generally be a “contractual relationship” under which an individual is employed or engaged to perform work personally. An employer must not discriminate against an employee and may, in some circumstances, be liable for discrimination against a former employee. An employer may also be liable for the discriminatory acts of its employees or agents. Employees and agents may be personally liable for acts of discrimination treated as having been done by the employer. A [APPELLANT] must not knowingly assist, instruct, cause, or induce discrimination in the workplace.

15. The claim, as pleaded, cannot succeed because it has not been contended that there is a relevant relationship giving rise to potential liability. The claimant in fact accepts that there is not such a relationship but prays in aid that “that Tribunals consider the complex relationships and influence within NHS structures to hold parties accountable even where traditional employment relationships do not exist.” The claimant does not explain how in this case that might arise.

16. The claim against Dr [NAME] has no reasonable prospect of success and must therefore be struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.

The application to strike out the claims based on the settlement agreement

17. For the purposes of the application I set out the following chronology of events.

Page 4 of 10

18. Between Autumn 2023 and February 2024, there were executive-level discussions concerning the Trust’s financial position, including a proposed 3% workforce savings initiative. Correspondence during this period indicates that aspects of the proposal were supported by senior clinical leaders.

19. At a Trust Board meeting on 1 February 2024, the claimant raised concerns relating to Black maternal mortality outcomes and systemic discrimination against ethnic minority staff. He subsequently contends that those concerns were not reflected in the formal minutes of the meeting.

20. On 16 February 2024, Dr [NAME], Chief Executive of the Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Board, wrote to the Trust’s Chief Executive stating that she had lost confidence in the leadership of the Trust’s financial function.

21. On 22 February 2024, the claimant was shown Dr [APPELLANT] letter. On the same date, a further letter was issued by the Trust’s Chief Medical Officer and [NAME] expressing no confidence in the claimant’s performance as Chief Financial Officer.

22. On 29 February 2024, a without-prejudice meeting took place between the claimant, the Trust’s Chief Executive, and the [COMPANY]. During that meeting, the [NAME] stated that the claimant’s position was “untenable”. Thereafter, the circumstances of the claimant’s employment became contested.

23. The claimant’s access to the Trust’s IT systems was disabled. Then on 8 March 2024, the Trust’s Chief Executive circulated an all-staff email stating that the claimant had stepped down with immediate effect. The claimant disputes that he had stepped down.

24. On 18 March 2024, the claimant received correspondence at his home address referring to his resignation.

25. In a letter dated 26 March 2024, solicitors acting on behalf of the claimant wrote to the Trust setting out potential claims, including allegations of discrimination, whistleblowing detriment, and unfair dismissal.

26. On 11 June 2024, the claimant entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Trust and certain named individuals. The agreement provided for termination of the claimant’s employment on 31 August 2024 and purported to compromise claims arising up to the date of the agreement. It is accepted that unless the agreement is vitiated by a common law doctrine the agreement operates to settle the claims brought against the respondents.

Page 5 of 10

27. A properly constituted settlement agreement will bar an employee from taking a tribunal claim any further.

28. The claimant says that the Settlement Agreement is voidable on three independent grounds: (a) Fraudulent misrepresentation (The Letter of 22 February 2024 contained false statements of fact); (b) Economic duress (the unlawful cessation of pay left him with no realistic alternative but to sign); (c) Conspiracy: the Letter formed part of a concerted course of conduct to force the claimant’s removal.

29. The respondent’s position is insofar as the claim relates to matters alleged to have occurred on or before 11 June 2024 is that it has been settled pursuant to a settlement agreement which satisfies the conditions regulating settlement agreements under section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”) and section 147 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”), and there is no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that the agreement can be avoided by reason of fraudulent misrepresentation, economic duress, conspiracy or otherwise.

30. The claimant contends that he was subjected to a fraudulent misrepresentation. The fraudulent misrepresentations arise from the letters of [NAME] and Dr [NAME].

31. A fraudulent misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to whether it is true or false, which induces the other party to enter a contract and causes loss.

32. In her letter [NAME] states that the Trust achieved several positive outcomes in 2023/24, that there have been growing concerns throughout the year about the transparency of Trust’s financial position. [NAME] states that she has lost confidence in the leadership of the Trust’s [NAME] function, she refers to defensive responses to legitimate challenge having become a long-standing pattern and warns that this behaviour will hinder effective partnership working.

33. In respect of the [APPELLANT] letter the claimant states: “The letter in question contains serious allegations about my performance and leadership of the financial function within the Trust. Specifically, Dr. [NAME] states that she has “lost confidence in the leadership of the financial function within the Trust” and expresses concerns about “long-standing patterns of your Trust's [NAME] function leadership behaviour”. These allegations were directed at me, the only ethnic minority CFO (of 45 CFOs) in the Region made without any supporting evidence or specific examples. … the [NAME] letter constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation, as the statements were made recklessly, without care for their truth or falsity and designed to cause harm, which is equivalent to fraud in the context of deceit.”

34. In the case of Dr [APPELLANT] the claimant says that: “Dr [APPELLANT] made false representations about me prior to the settlement. He (a) falsely claimed a letter he wrote expressed the entire [NAME]’s lack of confidence in me; (b) made unfounded allegations that I disregarded patient

Page 6 of 10

safety concerns; (c) falsely claimed that I derided establishment calculations; (d) misrepresented my role in proposing staffing reductions. These misrepresentations materially deliberately influenced my decision to sign a settlement agreement and eventually resign. The actions represent fraudulent inducement.”

35. As a result of the letters there essentially arose a dispute between the claimant and the trust. It was contended that the claimant’s continuing employment was not tenable. It was as a purported means of settling this dispute that the settlement agreement was created. Between the letters and the settlement agreement was the dispute. The letters themselves did not induce the claimant to enter into the settlement agreement.

36. The claimant’s response to the [APPELLANT] letter is that there “was and is no reasonable or objective basis for Ms [NAME] position”. In respect of the letter from Dr [APPELLANT] the claimant states that it “is nonsensical and baseless”. The claimant does not state in the claim form that he entered into the settlement agreement after being induced to do so by either of the letters. It is clear that he was not so induced. The claimant’s position is that these letters form part of the core facts that lead to the eventual decision to enter into the settlement agreement. They are not in any sense representations that induce the claimant into entering into the settlement agreement.

37. The claimant contends that has been exposed to economic duress.

38. In [NAME] v [COMPANY] and anor 1986 ICR 461, CA Mr [NAME] was employed by [COMPANY], a dispute arose between him and the company. Mr [NAME] later signed a settlement agreement after receiving advice from both his solicitor and an ACAS conciliation officer. Under that agreement, he accepted a lump-sum payment and certain continued benefits “in full and final settlement of all claims” he could bring before an Employment Tribunal arising from the termination of his employment. Despite signing the agreement, [NAME] later brought an unfair dismissal claim before an Employment Tribunal. The employer relied on the settlement agreement as a complete defence.

39. Mr [NAME] argued that the agreement was Void under s.140(1) Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, and Voidable at common law because it had been procured under economic duress. The employer denied duress and argued that s.140(2)(d) applied, meaning the agreement was valid because it had been concluded with the involvement of an ACAS conciliation officer acting under statutory powers. The central issue in the case was whether a settlement agreement reached with ACAS involvement could still be challenged on grounds of economic duress, and whether the statutory framework (s.140 EPCA 1978) rendered the agreement binding despite such allegations. The court of appeal found that the agreement was binding. However, it confirmed that a settlement agreement could be avoided on common law grounds such as economic duress.

Page 7 of 10

40. [ADDRESS] of Appeal in [NAME] v [COMPANY] confirmed that allegations of economic duress in the context of employment settlement agreements require proof of illegitimate pressure, not merely financial difficulty or a sense of having “no real choice.” [ADDRESS] of Appeal held that where an employee has had the benefit of independent legal advice and ACAS conciliation, it will be exceptionally difficult to establish that any agreement was procured by duress. Properly concluded ACAS-assisted settlements are intended to provide finality, and the Court emphasised that they cannot be reopened simply because the employee later regrets the decision or felt under ordinary commercial pressure at the time.

41. In his claim forms the claimant states nothing about economic duress. He states in the first claim form that: “The [COMPANY] in a meeting in 29 February 2024 declared my position “untenable” where in that meeting the CEO seemed to abdicate responsibility, culminating in a forced resignation under duress.” And then goes on to state that: “My pay was abruptly and unlawfully stopped on 29 February, my IT disconnected and I was removed from the Directors WhatsApp group despite two emails to the Chief [NAME] confirming that I had not resigned.”

42. In his application to amend the claim dated 6 February 2026 the claimant states that following the meeting on 29 February 2024, the Trust unlawfully ceased paying his salary despite not having given written notice of resignation and then subsequently writing on multiple occasions before 8 March 2024 to confirm he had not resigned. The cessation of pay from March 2024 onwards created severe financial pressure on the claimant. This placed the claimant under illegitimate economic pressure to sign the Settlement Agreement on 11 June 2024. The claimant contends that he had no reasonable alternative but to sign under this financial duress.

43. The claimant says that his application to amend the claim is not adding a new claim is “relabelling/clarification…the factual matrix has already been pleaded: The claimant stated in his original ET1s that his pay was unlawfully stopped after 29 February 2024”.

44. In his witness statement dated 15 February 2026 the claimant says that his case is that the “no confidence” letters were used to manufacture or reinforce a justification for his removal, including the false announcement that he had “stepped down” despite his repeated statements that he had not resigned. These letters, together with that announcement, were then used to exert pressure on him to sign a settlement agreement, which he now alleges was procured by misrepresentation and/or economic duress.

45. The claimant has only referred to the cessation of pay as economic duress, no other information about his circumstances have been given as the basis for any prospective finding of fact to support the conclusion that there was economic duress.

Page 8 of 10

46. The claimant had from at least 11 March 2024, up signing of the settlement agreement on 11 June 2024, employed the services of solicitors who pointed out in a letter dated 26 March 2024 that the claimant had several potential claims: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, race discrimination, and whistleblowing. The solicitors state that the claimant “will be left with no choice but to seek legal redress to the fullest extent possible.”

47. Economic duress is only a ground of avoidance if the duress is such as to amount to a coercion of will vitiating consent. Economic duress can provide a basis for avoiding a contract only if there was no real alternative. In this case as in [NAME] there was the alternative of complaining to the Employment Tribunal as detailed in the claimant’s solicitor’s letter. Also in this case the agreement was reached after the claimant had a solicitor to advise him.

48. Taking into account the circumstances of this case as put forward by the claimant there is in my view no reasonable prospect of the claimant being able to show that the settlement agreement was entered into in circumstances of economic duress so as to allow for the conclusion that the settlement agreement is void.

49. The claimant will say that [APPELLANT], and [APPELLANT] unlawfully conspired to remove the claimant from his position through coordinated false allegations. [NAME] acted as the coordinator of this conspiracy. The conspiracy was motivated by the claimant's protected race discrimination disclosures on 1 February 2024 concerning black maternal mortality data and ethnic staff perceptions of promotion prospects. The Letter (22 February 2024) formed part of a concerted course of conduct to force the claimant’s removal, the full extent of which requires disclosure and determination after evidence is provided by the Trust.

50. The claimant’s case in respect of conspiracy cannot lead to a conclusion that the settlement agreement is invalid.

51. The effect of the settlement agreement is that the claimant agreed a full and final settlement of the claims detailed. The claims covered by the agreement are detailed in preamble (c) and clause 7.3 of the agreement.

52. Insofar as the claim relates to matters alleged to have occurred on or before 11 June 2024, it has been settled pursuant to the settlement agreement. The claimant’s contention that the settlement agreement is invalid by reason of any common law doctrine, such as fraudulent misrepresentation, economic duress or conspiracy have no reasonable prospect of success. In the circumstances the claimant’s claims against the first respondent in case number 3302627/2025 have no reasonable prospect of success and are

Page 9 of 10

struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.

53. The claimant’s claim against Dr [APPELLANT] (case number 3302585/2025) is struck out on the additional grounds that it has no reasonable prospect of success because the claim has been settled by the settlement agreement.

54. The claimant’s claim against [APPELLANT] (3302654/2025) is struck out on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant has been settled by the agreement.

55. The claimant’s claim against Dr [APPELLANT] (6044961/2025) is struck out on the grounds that it has not reasonable prospect of success because the claim has been settled by the agreement.

The claimant’s applications

56. The claimant also applies to add economic duress as a ground for voiding the Settlement Agreement. For the reasons set out above I am not satisfied that there is any reasonable prospect of the claimant’s contention that the settlement be avoided because of economic duress has any reasonable prospect of success. In the circumstances I therefore refuse the application to amend the claim.

57. The claimant makes an application to add specific allegations regarding [RESPONDENT] the [NAME]. The basis of the application is that the [RESPONDENT] conspired with [NAME] [NAME], [NAME], and [APPELLANT] unlawfully conspired to remove the claimant from his position through coordinated false allegations. The Tribunal does not have a jurisdiction to consider a claim for conspiracy against [RESPONDENT]. The claim against the first respondent has been struck out because of the settlement agreement. In the circumstances there is no proper basis on which to grant an application to amend the claim to add [APPELLANT] to the claim.

58. The claimant’s applications for specific disclosure are dismissed. The applications would in any have been premature had the claims not been struck out.

Approved by: Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto

18 May 2026 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

26 May 2026

Page 10 of 10

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

Notes All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any full written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents.

If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:

www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation- practice-directions/