- 08 July 2016
In the first appellate decision on the scope of settlement negotiations under s.111A Employment Rights Act 1996 (Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP v Bailey) (“Bailey”), the EAT has ruled that references to, and information relating to the conduct of, such negotiations were inadmissible.
Since 29 July 2013, parties have been able to use s.111A to ensure pre-termination negotiations for unfair dismissal claims are inadmissible in any subsequent Tribunal proceedings. This prevents a Tribunal considering evidence of ‘any offer made or discussions held’ with a view to terminating employment on agreed terms. The rationale (as with the ‘without prejudice’ rule) is to enable parties to discuss potential settlement openly without fear of repercussion if the settlement discussions break down.
In Bailey, the EAT (overturning the original ET decision) held that it is not just the content of the discussions which is inadmissible to the Tribunal, but also the mere fact these discussions were held in the first place. This includes discussions between the employer and employee, and internal discussions within the employer, for example between managers and HR advisers. The claimant, therefore, could not rely on these discussions in support of her unfair dismissal claim.
111A is different to the common law ‘without prejudice’ rule in a number of key aspects:
- Unlike ‘without prejudice’ discussions, privilege under s.111A cannot be waived, even with the consent of both parties.
- As mentioned above, s.111A applies only to unfair dismissal cases.
- S.111A can apply even where there is no dispute at the time of the discussions. The ‘without prejudice’ rule only applies where there is an existing dispute between the parties.
- Unlike the ‘without prejudice’ rule, which can only be disregarded by the Tribunal if there is ‘unambiguous impropriety’ by a party, s.111A may not apply if there is ‘improper behaviour’ (which gives a wider discretion to the Tribunal).
Chambers and Partners
The Clarkslegal team are commercial and good to work with. They get what our business needs and tell me what I need to hear.
A number of questions remain unanswered following the judgment and we will wait to see if clarity is brought at a later point. Practical difficulties will arise where (as in Bailey) another claim, such as discrimination arises in addition to the unfair dismissal, as the protection of s.111A only allows the evidence to be inadmissible for the unfair dismissal part of the claim. Also, the EAT did not consider whether s.111A applies if no offer of settlement is made.
The case has been sent back to the Tribunal to determine whether there was any ‘improper behaviour’ under the exemptions to s.111A.
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.
About this article
SubjectSettlement negotiations under section 111A ERA ruled to be inadmissible in Tribunal proceedings
Published08 July 2016
Read, listen and watch our latest insights
- 08 December 2023
UK Hospitality – Right to Work
The UK’s hospitality sector is strongly impacted by immigration rules and policies post-Brexit.
- 04 December 2023
- Commercial Real Estate
Real Estate update and 2024 expectations
The ECC confers rights on code operators to install and maintain electronic communications apparatus on public land, and even grants operators the right to sometimes apply to court for an order allowing them to install and maintain such apparatus on private land.
- 29 November 2023
How will the Autumn Statement 2023 affect the Construction Industry?
On 22 November 2023 Parliament was presented with the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement.
- 29 November 2023
- Public Procurement
Public Procurement Annual Update 2023
Watch Clarkslegal’s Public Procurement team as they provide you with the essential information businesses involved in public tenders need to know.
- 28 November 2023
The risk of insolvency with equal pay claims: how can you avoid them?
Even though the law states that everyone should be paid equally for work of comparable value, this does not always happen in practice.
- 21 November 2023
- Privacy and Data Protection
Privacy matters: How the 8 data subject rights protect personal data
In this guide we explore the 8 data subject rights under the UK GDPR and discover how they play a vital role in preserving your organisation’s privacy standards in an increasingly interconnected world.