Court of Appeal decision in Hinton/. The University of East London [2005] IRLR 552 found that the transaction agreements were intended to settle certain identifiable claims. The Court of Appeal held that an employee had the right to know exactly what he would deny and that the transaction agreements had to be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case. Special or potential rights covered by a transaction agreement must be identified either by a clear general reference, such as « unfair dismissal, » « automatic unfair dismissal to assert a legal right, » « gender discrimination, » or by reference to the section of the law that establishes the law (a reference to all ERDF rights in 1996 will not sufficiently identify the claim found). The decision also indicated that it would be useful to identify the claim to be settled in practice, by providing information on the nature of the allegations and the status under which they are collected, or on the basis of the common law of the claim in the form of a brief factual and legal description (for example. B illegitimate wage deductions under Part II of the ERDF in 1996, statutory severance pay under Section 135 of the 1996 ERA, or unjustified dismissals under Sections 94 and 98A of the 1996 ERDF). When entering into transaction agreements with your current or former employees, Employers generally identify « living » claims and alleged claims that the worker may have against the company and include a « catch-all » rule that, since the employee was legal counsel by his legal counsel, has no other claims against the company or its senior executives, employees or shareholders arising from his employment or dismissal or otherwise. It is common practice for certain rights to also be excluded from the scope, i.e. future rights to loss of pension rights, any right to the terms of the transaction contract, claims for compensation and, with the new whistleblowing regime (discussed elsewhere in this newsletter), clauses preventing an employee from making a protected disclosure in a timely manner.

The decision of the Khanty-Mansiysk Commercial Court Recoveries Limited v. Forsters LLP [2016] EWHC 522 (Comm) may not be of obvious importance to HR practitioners at first glance. However, this decision highlights important considerations for the development of employment comparison agreements. As the employment cases described above show, if the objective of a transaction agreement is to reach a complete and final settlement of the receivables, it is not necessarily easy to cover them all in an agreement. When reaching an agreement, there is not much to consider, especially based on the catch-all rule. However, the drafting of the waiver and release clause must be carefully considered to ensure that you do not compromise future claims that your company may have against an employee, or vice versa, if certain staff claims are to be deleted.