COT3 Agreement Holds Firm: Protected Disclosure Claim Barred by Appeal Tribunal
A former employee's attempt to bring a new claim was blocked by a comprehensive settlement agreement.
• public
Tribunal Upholds Settlement Agreement in Protected Disclosure Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that a comprehensive settlement agreement, known as a COT3, can prevent employees from bringing future claims, even if those claims relate to protected disclosures made prior to the agreement.
Background to the Dispute
The case involved Mrs. A Darlington, who had been employed by the London Borough of Islington at Hargrave Park School. She raised safeguarding concerns and made complaints to OFSTED, which she maintained constituted protected disclosures. Following her departure from the school, a negative reference led to a potential claim for detriment based on these disclosures. Through ACAS conciliation, a COT3 agreement was reached. This agreement stipulated it was a full and final settlement of all current and future claims against the school, the employer, and its staff, including those under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
New Job Application, New Claim
Subsequently, Mrs. Darlington applied for a job at another school run by the same employer, Westbourne Early Years Centre. Her application was unsuccessful, and she sought to bring a new claim alleging detriment on the grounds of the same protected disclosures. The Employment Tribunal initially found that the COT3 agreement barred her claim.
Appeal Tribunal's Decision
On appeal, Mrs. Darlington argued that the COT3 was only intended to settle claims related to her time at Hargrave Park School and not to prevent future claims against the council in other capacities. She contended that the wording of the agreement was not clear enough to cover such future eventualities.
However, the EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal's decision. Lord Fairley, President, stated that the objective intention of the COT3 agreement was to settle all existing and potential future claims arising from Mrs. Darlington's allegations of making protected disclosures and suffering detriment as a result. The tribunal found that the wording, "whether arising from her employment with the Employer, its termination or from events occurring after this agreement," clearly intended to exclude claims for future alleged acts of detriment linked to those initial disclosures.
The EAT emphasised that the precise wording of settlement agreements is paramount. They noted that the COT3 was designed to provide a broad settlement, and Mrs. Darlington's new claim, even though concerning a different alleged detriment, was based on the same core allegations of protected disclosures made during her previous employment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Read the entire judgment here: Mrs A Darlington v London Borough of Islington & Anor. [2026] EAT 11 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6980c572f0e5cf1ed2612e2d/Mrs_A_Darlington_v_London_Borough_of_Islington__2026__EAT_11.pdf
