COT3 agreement stands: former employee's misrepresentation claim struck out as abuse of process
A former employee who signed a COT3 settlement for £7,000 later tried to set it aside, alleging misrepresentation about redeployment rights. The tribunal struck out all claims as an abuse of process.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #abuse-of-process
- #cot3-agreement
- #misrepresentation
- #redeployment
- #long-term-sickness
- #grievance
Key facts
- The claimant signed a COT3 agreement on 23 December 2021 settling all claims for £7,000.
- The claimant resigned and withdrew his grievance as part of the COT3 agreement.
- The claimant later sought to set aside the COT3, alleging misrepresentation about redeployment rights.
- The tribunal found no actionable misrepresentation of fact or law by the respondent.
- The claimant entered the agreement freely and fully informed.
Timeline
-
Grievance investigation meeting
Mike Burridge met with the claimant to discuss grievance outcome; claimant did not state preferred outcome.
-
Grievance outcome recommendation
Mike Burridge recommended the claimant not return to the same team and be redeployed with reasonable adjustments.
-
Claimant's email to ACAS
Claimant stated he would make a constructive dismissal claim if mediation for another position failed and sick pay extension was denied.
-
ACAS conciliation contact
ACAS conciliator Samantha Brewin asked claimant for desired outcome; claimant requested three-month sick pay extension and mediation.
-
Claimant's email to ACAS
Claimant stated he had no intention of returning to the Disabled Children's Team and would likely make a constructive dismissal claim.
-
Claimant's email to ACAS
Claimant clarified he was open to returning to the Council in some capacity and requested assurance about future job applications.
-
Council's final offer via ACAS
Council offered £7,000 and stated policy of no re-employment for 12 months; claimant signed COT3 agreement.
-
COT3 agreement signed
Claimant signed the COT3 agreement, resigning and withdrawing grievance in exchange for £7,000.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Cadney held a preliminary hearing to discuss issues; claimant agreed claims were pre-dated by COT3.
-
Preliminary hearing judgment
Employment Judge Smail struck out all claims as abuse of process, finding no misrepresentation to set aside COT3.
The legal issue
Whether a COT3 agreement can be set aside on the basis of an alleged misrepresentation by the employer about redeployment rights, and whether claims brought after the agreement are an abuse of process.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims as an abuse of process, upholding the COT3 agreement.
The key reason was that the employee had not been misled: the redeployment policy was clear that it was subject to a suitable opportunity being available, and the employee was aware of this at the time of signing.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- A COT3 agreement is binding unless there is a clear misrepresentation of fact or law that induced you to sign it.
- If you are unsure about your rights under your employer's policies, seek independent legal advice before signing a settlement agreement.
- Bringing claims after signing a valid COT3 agreement is likely to be struck out as an abuse of process, wasting time and costs.
- Allegations of misrepresentation must be specific and proven; general dissatisfaction with the outcome is not enough.
This case shows the importance of understanding what you are signing when you enter into a COT3 agreement. The former employee, who had worked in the Pension Section and then the Disabled Children's Department, resigned and withdrew a grievance in exchange for £7,000. Later, he argued that the council had misrepresented his redeployment rights, claiming he would not have signed otherwise.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the employee had been consistent in his position but that there was no misrepresentation. The council's policy stated redeployment was subject to a suitable opportunity being available, and the employee was aware of this. The tribunal noted that the employee had been in discussions with ACAS and had not been misled. The COT3 agreement was enforceable, and all claims were struck out.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employee could have sought independent legal advice before signing the COT3 agreement, especially given the complex issues around redeployment and sickness absence. He might also have clarified the redeployment position in writing before agreeing to settle. Instead, he signed the agreement and then tried to challenge it, which the tribunal saw as an abuse of process.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that COT3 agreements are robust and will not be set aside lightly. Employees who sign a settlement should be aware that it usually ends all claims relating to the same facts. If you believe you were misled, you must have clear evidence of a specific misrepresentation of fact or law – not just a disagreement about what the policy meant. The tribunal's decision also highlights the value of using ACAS conciliation, which can help ensure both parties understand the terms before signing.
Similar cases
Dismissed while hospitalised with sickle cell crisis: procedural failings made it unfair
A pharmacist with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Whittington Health NHS Trust after being refused an extension to her notice period while hospitalised with a sickle cell crisis. The tribunal found indirect disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments, awarding £16,884.
20-year manager dismissed for capability after employer refused to adjust role for disability
A Global Governance Risk and Compliance Manager with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after GlaxoSmithKline failed to make reasonable adjustments for her hand disability. The tribunal awarded £24,785 for injury to feelings.
Customer service assistant dismissed on medical grounds without recommended risk assessment
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a London Underground customer service assistant with 13 years' service, finding that the employer acted reasonably despite not carrying out a recommended risk assessment before termination.
Nurse with 10 years' service wins constructive dismissal after trust failed to explore redeployment
A community staff nurse who resigned after her NHS trust failed to contact her about redeployment during long-term sickness has won her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded £41,935.