Settlement dispute: tribunal upholds COT3 signed by solicitor

This case shows how a settlement reached through ACAS can bring an employment claim to a final end, even when the claimant later has second thoughts. The former employee had brought two identical unfair dismissal claims against Tata Steel UK Limited. His solicitor negotiated a settlement via ACAS, and a COT3 agreement was signed on his behalf. The claimant then argued that his solicitor lacked authority to agree to certain terms, such as a positive reference that he said was promised but not included.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal focused on the legal concept of ostensible authority. The claimant had told his solicitor to accept the settlement offer, and the solicitor acted within the normal scope of a solicitor's role by signing the COT3. The fact that the claimant did not see the final wording before signing did not remove the solicitor's authority. The tribunal therefore issued a judgment dismissing the claims, as required by Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.

What could have been done differently

The claimant could have avoided this outcome by insisting on seeing the full terms before authorising acceptance, or by communicating his concerns to the tribunal immediately rather than after the settlement was reported. His email on the morning of 4 April 2023, expressing confusion about his case, was not enough to stop the process. Once the ACAS settlement was notified and the solicitor confirmed withdrawal, the case was effectively closed.

Why this matters

This case is a reminder that settlements through ACAS are binding and final. If you have concerns about your solicitor's handling of a settlement, you should raise them before the agreement is signed. After that point, the tribunal is unlikely to reopen the case unless there is clear evidence of fraud or lack of authority. The decision also highlights the importance of clear communication between client and solicitor throughout the settlement process.