On 19 December 2025, the EAT handed down judgment in Turner v Western Mortgage Services [2025] EAT 191, in which the Respondent argued successfully that the appeal was barred by a compromise agreement. The judgment contains useful guidance as to the interpretation of certain common provisions in settlement agreements in the employment context.
The Claimant (Appellant) had brought claims in the Employment Tribunal (“ET”). After part of his case was struck out, the parties entered into a COT3 agreement. At the time when the agreement was entered into, the Claimant had an outstanding appeal to the EAT against the strike-out decision.
After the COT3 had been signed, the EAT granted permission for the Claimant’s appeal to proceed to a full hearing. When it did so, the EAT was unaware that the parties had entered into a compromise agreement. The Claimant then sought to maintain his appeal, on the basis that he had not intended the settlement to encompass that part of the claim. The EAT listed a preliminary hearing to decide whether the COT3 precluded the appeal.
Before the EAT, the Respondent argued successfully that the COT3 was effective to settle the appeal and, in any event, that the COT3 would have rendered the appeal academic. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Michael White acted for the successful Respondent.
