If this is not the case, the position is riskier. The innocent party may invoke the right of termination of the Common Law for a negative offence if he or she relies on the fact that the offence is considered sufficiently serious for a court to decide that the refusal was lawful. In this case, disclosure of the fact and terms of the transaction did not cause significant commercial harm to DFK and the risk of imitation requests from other angry employees who might have heard of the transaction was low. As the offence had an interim delay and was not dismissed, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Our labour law team has extensive experience in designing and advising on settlement agreements, both from an employer and worker perspective. Transaction agreements typically contain a confidentiality clause that requires a staff member to keep the existence and terms of a transaction confidential. Employers often consider this clause to be essential to prevent the agreement from being known to all. This should, they hope, prevent reputational damage and deter other employees from asserting claims (with or without pay) in the hope of securing a financial agreement. Our lawyers deal with a breach of contract every day. Given the very significant potential impact of a contract termination and the risks of a legal or strategic error, we are happy to talk to you and help you protect your interests. Please contact us.
Since their introduction, compromise agreements/conciliation agreements have given rise to a great deal of case law. In this case, the principles apply to all transaction agreements. This case reminds employers to think about the subsequent impact of what the settlement agreement is supposed to achieve. When drawing up and/or negotiating, employers must ensure that there is sufficient room for manoeuvre for all payments due under the agreement, which are subject to the conditions of the agreement that are fulfilled by the worker. Generic models of settlement agreements often contain standard platform clauses, but the wording is not always effective in ensuring that a breach of the clause would constitute an infringement. The High Court explained why both tracks were not successful in this case. As regards the first route, the treaty did not explicitly specify that the clause was a condition. It was not considered an implied condition, as it was a generic “Boilerplate” clause that was included in most settlement agreements. The elaboration did not take into account a specific idea, which indicates that DFK did not consider confidentiality as a key concept of the agreement or as a sufficiently serious commercial risk to subordinate payment to compliance.
The second way failed because the corresponding test was not met – did S show any intention to abandon the treaty and totally refuse to respect the treaty? S had not sought to revive his claim against DFK and, with the exception of the transmission to his former colleague, he had continued to comply with his other obligations. The COT3 agreement reflected the conditions for the settlement of labour court proceedings obtained with the assistance of ACAS. . . .
