Consent judgment upheld: employer's pressure claim rejected for lack of evidence
A tribunal refused to reconsider a consent judgment after the employer alleged pressure, but provided no evidence. The former employee will receive £3,000.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #consent-judgment
- #reconsideration-refused
- #settlement
Key facts
- The parties reached a settlement at a hearing on 1 December 2022.
- The respondent agreed to pay the claimant £3,000 by 29 December 2022.
- The respondent was represented by a mechanic, Mr Taylor.
- The respondent later alleged pressure but provided no evidence.
- The reconsideration application was refused for lack of evidence.
Timeline
-
Consent hearing
The parties attended a hearing before Employment Judge Horne. They agreed to a consent judgment requiring the respondent to pay £3,000.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The written judgment was sent to the parties.
-
Respondent's email
Mr Taylor emailed the tribunal claiming he was pressured into consenting, which was treated as a reconsideration application.
-
Tribunal letter
The tribunal asked the respondent to provide details of the alleged pressure by 7 February 2023.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Horne refused the reconsideration application due to lack of evidence.
The legal issue
Whether a consent judgment should be set aside because the employer claims they were pressured into agreeing to it.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the employer's application to reconsider the consent judgment.
The key reason was that the employer, New Platt Motors Ltd, alleged they were pressured into consenting but provided no evidence to support this claim. The employment judge found no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
Compensation: £3,000 (total settlement, no breakdown provided).
Lessons & takeaways
- If you agree to a settlement at a tribunal hearing, you are bound by it unless you can provide solid evidence of duress or mistake.
- A tribunal will not reconsider a consent judgment simply because one party later regrets it or feels pressured without proof.
- Employers should ensure they have legal representation or independent advice before consenting to a judgment, especially if they are not familiar with tribunal procedures.
- Parties should document any concerns about pressure or unfairness at the time of the hearing, as later claims without evidence are unlikely to succeed.
This case shows how difficult it is to overturn a consent judgment once it has been agreed. The former employee and New Platt Motors Ltd reached a settlement at a hearing, with the employer agreeing to pay £3,000. But shortly after, the employer's representative, a mechanic, emailed the tribunal claiming he had been pressured into consenting.
What the tribunal decided
Employment Judge Horne refused to reconsider the judgment. The tribunal noted that the employer had not provided any details or evidence of the alleged pressure, despite being asked to do so. Without evidence, there was no reasonable prospect of changing the original decision. The consent given at the hearing was valid.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employer could have raised any concerns about pressure at the hearing itself, or sought independent advice before agreeing. A vague email sent weeks later, with no supporting evidence, was not enough to persuade the tribunal to reopen the case.
Why this matters
Consent judgments are a common way to resolve employment disputes without a full hearing. But once agreed, they are final unless there is clear proof of a problem like duress or fraud. This case is a reminder that tribunals will hold parties to their word, especially when the agreement was made in a formal hearing with a judge present.
Similar cases
COT3 settlement upheld: former employee's capacity challenge fails
An employment tribunal dismissed all claims after finding they were settled by a COT3 agreement, and refused reconsideration. The claimant was ordered to pay £1,750 + VAT in costs.
Former employee's claim dismissed after ACAS contact was one day late
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out because he contacted ACAS one day late and submitted his claim about a week outside the time limit. The tribunal found no evidence to extend time.
Former employee's claims struck out after failing to pay tribunal deposit
The employment tribunal struck out all three claims brought by a former employee against Openwork Limited after he failed to pay a deposit order. The tribunal also refused his applications for an extension of time and reconsideration.
Claim struck out after employee missed final hearing and failed to provide witness statement
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Sainsbury’s was struck out after she failed to attend the final hearing and did not provide a witness statement as ordered. The tribunal refused her application for reconsideration.