The Home Office v J Oxley
[2024] EAT 44
Dr Sara Ajaz v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
24 November 2023
[2023] EAT 142
Employment Appeal Tribunal
An employee settled past workplace claims. Later, they made new claims based on the same original issue. The court said the initial settlement prevented reopening that issue, but it should not have completely blocked the employee from raising new, separate problems.
Key Facts
- •Dr Sara Ajaz (Appellant) brought claims of detriments against Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent) under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).
- •The initial claims (2017 Claim) were settled via a COT3 agreement and withdrawn by the Appellant.
- •Subsequently, the Appellant filed further claims (2021 Claims) alleging new detriments based on the same protected disclosures as the 2017 Claim.
- •The Employment Judge (EJ) struck out the 2021 Claims, relying on rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and, alternatively, on abuse of process.
- •The Appellant appealed the EJ's decision.
Legal Principles
Rule 52 of the ET Rules prevents a claimant from raising the same or substantially the same complaint after a previous claim's withdrawal.
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Rule 52
Issue estoppel prevents relitigating an issue already decided in previous proceedings, even if the cause of action differs.
Common law, Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93, Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2014] AC 160
Abuse of process can occur if a party attempts to relitigate settled issues.
Common law
Section 43J ERA renders void any agreement precluding a worker from making a protected disclosure.
Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 43J
A COT3 agreement's interpretation is a matter of construction; it may settle future claims depending on its wording.
Arvunescu v Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd [2023] ICR 271 CA
Outcomes
The appeal succeeded on Ground 1 (rule 52 application).
The EJ erred in applying rule 52 broadly to encompass issue estoppel; the new claims involved different detriments, not the same or substantially the same complaint.
The appeal failed on Grounds 2-4.
The COT3 agreement validly settled the issue of whether the disclosures were protected, preventing relitigation; section 43J ERA was not engaged; the EJ did not err in not considering a potential fundamental breach of the COT3 without express acceptance by the Appellant.