For nearly 20 years, Mr Bathgate was employed by Technip Singapore PTE Limited as a Chief Officer of a number of vessels. During the final six months of his employment, he worked onshore in Scotland. In January 2017, he took voluntary redundancy through a settlement agreement, which included a future payment based on a collective agreement. The collective agreement stated that the additional payment would be made only to those who had not reached the age of 61. Mr. Bathgate, unaware of this provision, signed the agreement. In June 2017, when informed he wouldn't receive the payment due to his age, he filed an age discrimination claim. The employer argued that by signing the settlement agreement, Mr. Bathgate had waived his right to any future claims. The agreement included a waiver of "all claims … of whatever nature (whether past, present or future)." The employer also relied on s 81(1) of the Equality Act, which excludes “seafarers” from the Act’s protections, unless certain exceptions apply.
The Court of Session ruled that a settlement agreement can waive unknown future claims if the types of claims are clearly identified in the agreement. The requirement for the agreement to relate to a "particular complaint" does not necessitate the complaint being known or existing at the time of the agreement. The court found no reason why a future claim, described in general terms, could not be waived in a settlement agreement. Consequently, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Bathgate’s claim.
This decision underscores that settlement agreements can effectively waive future claims, even if the claims are not known at the time of signing. It aligns the handling of such agreements with COT3 agreements, which do not require the "particular complaint" condition. Although this is a Scottish decision, it has influenced cases in England and Wales, such as Clifford v IBM, where the EAT upheld the validity of a settlement agreement waiving future disability discrimination claims.
Natalie Hunt from the settlement agreements unit at Thompsons said: “This case highlights the importance of clearly identifying the types of claims being waived in settlement agreements. Union representatives should ensure that members receive thorough legal advice before signing such agreements, particularly regarding the waiver of future claims. This decision reinforces the need for precise language in agreements to avoid disputes over their scope and validity."
Thompsons’ Employment Law Review (ELR) is recognised as an authoritative source of comment and discussion of rulings which fall under both UK and European law.
