Claims struck out after signing COT3: tribunal finds no abuse of process
A former employee who signed a settlement agreement and later brought new claims had her case struck out as an abuse of process. The tribunal found she had mental capacity when signing.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #sex-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #cot3-settlement
- #mental-capacity
- #abuse-of-process
Key facts
- The claimant brought a first set of claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination in 2022.
- The claimant signed a COT3 agreement on 25 January 2022 settling claims against the fourth respondent.
- The claimant brought further claims in 2023 including sex discrimination.
- The claimant acknowledged that her claims against the first respondent were settled by a payment of £2,500.
- The tribunal found the claimant had mental capacity when signing the COT3.
- The claims against the first and fourth respondents were struck out as an abuse of process.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with predecessors to the fourth respondent.
-
TUPE transfer to fourth respondent
Claimant's employment transferred to the fourth respondent.
-
TUPE transfer to first respondent
Claimant's employment transferred to the first respondent.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended.
-
COT3 signed
Claimant signed a COT3 settling claims against the fourth respondent.
-
First claim presented
Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination (case 3300791/2022).
-
Second claim presented
Claimant brought further claims including sex discrimination (case 3300357/2023).
-
Settlement with first respondent
First respondent paid claimant £2,500 to settle all claims.
-
2022 claims dismissed
Claims against second and third respondents dismissed on withdrawal.
-
Preliminary hearing
Tribunal struck out claims against first and fourth respondents as abuse of process.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's new claims were an abuse of process because they had already been settled by a prior COT3 agreement, and whether the claimant lacked mental capacity when signing that agreement.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claims against the first and fourth respondents as an abuse of process. The claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed on withdrawal.
The key reason was that the claimant had signed a COT3 agreement settling all claims against the fourth respondent, and had also accepted a payment of £2,500 from the first respondent to settle claims. The tribunal found she had mental capacity at the time of signing.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Signing a COT3 settlement agreement usually prevents you from bringing the same claims again, even if you later change your mind.
- If you believe you lacked mental capacity when signing a settlement, you need strong medical evidence from that specific time, not later assessments.
- Bringing claims that have already been settled risks having them struck out as an abuse of process, and you may face a costs application.
- Always get independent legal advice before signing a COT3, especially if you have health concerns.
- If you want to challenge a settlement on capacity grounds, act promptly and gather contemporaneous medical records.
This case shows the importance of finality in settlement agreements. The former employee had signed a COT3 with the fourth respondent in January 2022, settling unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims. She later brought new claims against the same respondents, including sex discrimination, arguing she lacked mental capacity when signing the COT3.
The tribunal rejected that argument. It found no evidence that she lacked capacity at the time of signing, and noted that she had been assisted by a friend during the conciliation process. The claims against the first respondent had also been settled by a £2,500 payment in February 2023.
What the employer did right
A&A Enterprises London Ltd and the fourth respondent had properly documented settlements through Acas. They ensured the claimant had support during the process. When new claims were filed, they applied to strike them out as an abuse of process — a step the tribunal endorsed.
What the claimant could have done differently
If the claimant genuinely believed she lacked capacity, she needed medical evidence from January 2022, not later assessments. She also should have sought legal advice before signing the COT3. Bringing the same claims again without fresh grounds was always risky.
Why this matters
Tribunals take settlement agreements seriously. Once a claim is settled, it cannot be re-litigated unless there is a clear procedural flaw — such as lack of capacity or duress — supported by strong evidence. This case is a reminder that settlements are binding, and trying to reopen them without good reason can lead to strike-out and potential costs.
Similar cases
Former employee's claims struck out as out of time and for unreasonable conduct
A former employee's unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and discrimination claims have been struck out after being brought too late, with the tribunal also citing unreasonable conduct. The respondent was awarded £5,000 in costs.
Claims struck out after claimant and representative fail to attend hearing
A former employee's race and sex discrimination claims were struck out after she and her representative failed to attend a preliminary hearing without explanation. A later bid to reinstate the case was refused.
Dismissed security guard wins unfair dismissal and victimisation claims
A former employee of Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd has succeeded in unfair dismissal and victimisation claims after being dismissed for conduct failings. Remedy is yet to be determined.
Dismissed for fuel card misuse: a flawed process that still fell short of unfair dismissal
A former personal assistant was dismissed for gross misconduct over fuel card use, but the tribunal found the process unfair. However, due to a break in service she lacked two years' continuous employment, so her unfair dismissal claim failed.