COT3 settlement upheld: fixed-term employee's misrepresentation claim fails
A tribunal dismissed a former Student Support Assistant's unfair dismissal and detriment claims, finding that a COT3 settlement signed after her fixed-term contract ended was valid and not induced by misrepresentation.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #cot3-agreement
- #misrepresentation
- #future-claims
- #acas-conciliation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed on a fixed-term contract from 4 January 2021 to 31 August 2021 as a Student Support Assistant PP Intervention.
- The claimant did not apply for three Student Support Assistant roles advertised in May/June 2021.
- On 2 September 2021, the claimant signed a COT3 agreement with the respondent, receiving £3,000 in settlement of all claims.
- The claimant alleged the COT3 was induced by misrepresentation in a letter dated 6 August 2021, but the tribunal found the statement was true.
- The claimant's s.47B detriment claim arose after the COT3 was signed, but the tribunal held it was caught by clause 2.2 of the COT3 as linked to the original grievance.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as Student Support Assistant PP Intervention on a fixed-term contract ending 31 August 2021.
-
Student Support Assistant roles advertised
Three temporary Student Support Assistant roles were advertised internally, closing 14 June 2021.
-
Application deadline
Five candidates applied for the three roles; interviews scheduled for 21 June 2021.
-
Last day at work
Claimant attended work for the last time.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance, which she believed contained a protected disclosure.
-
Interviews held
Interviews for the three Student Support Assistant roles took place as planned.
-
Offers accepted
Three successful candidates accepted offers for the roles.
-
HR letter to claimant
HR wrote to claimant confirming her contract would end on 31 August 2021 and that the three roles had been filled.
-
Early Conciliation started
Claimant contacted Acas; Early Conciliation commenced.
-
Grievance appeal meeting
Appeal meeting held with Mr Trow; claimant attended with her partner.
-
Appeal outcome letter
Mr Trow wrote to claimant dismissing her appeal, confirming the three roles had been filled.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's fixed-term contract expired.
-
COT3 signed
Claimant signed a COT3 agreement with respondent, receiving £3,000 in full and final settlement.
-
New roles advertised
Two temporary Student Support Assistant roles advertised internally.
-
Claimant applied for new role
Claimant applied for one of the two new roles.
-
Application rejected
Respondent informed claimant her application was not taken forward as she did not meet the key relationships requirement.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a COT3 settlement agreement could be set aside due to an alleged misrepresentation in a grievance appeal letter, and whether a later detriment claim fell outside the scope of that agreement.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the COT3 agreement signed on 2 September 2021 was valid and not induced by misrepresentation. The statement in the 6 August 2021 appeal letter — that the claimant had not applied for the roles — was true, so no misrepresentation occurred.
- The claimant's s.47B detriment claim (arising from a rejected job application after the COT3) was also caught by clause 2.2 of the COT3, which covered all claims arising from or connected to her employment or its termination.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A COT3 agreement signed with Acas conciliation will usually be binding unless there is clear evidence of misrepresentation or duress.
- If you believe a statement made by your employer is false, you should investigate before signing a settlement — signing first and challenging later is unlikely to succeed.
- The wording of a COT3 can be broad enough to cover future claims if they are linked to the original employment or grievance.
- Seeking independent legal advice before signing a settlement is strongly recommended, even if you are unrepresented.
When a settlement agreement is final
This case shows how difficult it is to challenge a COT3 settlement once it has been signed. The claimant, a fixed-term Student Support Assistant, signed a COT3 agreement on 2 September 2021, receiving £3,000 in full and final settlement of all claims. She later argued that the agreement was invalid because she had been misled by a statement in a grievance appeal letter dated 6 August 2021.
The letter stated that she had not applied for three Student Support Assistant roles advertised in May/June 2021. The claimant believed this was untrue because she had expressed interest informally. However, the tribunal found that the statement was factually correct — she had not submitted a formal application. As the statement was true, there was no misrepresentation, and the COT3 stood.
The detriment claim was also caught
The claimant also brought a detriment claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, arguing that her later job application was rejected because she had made a protected disclosure. The tribunal held that this claim was caught by clause 2.2 of the COT3, which covered all claims arising from or connected to her employment or its termination. Since the rejection followed her original grievance, it was sufficiently linked.
What could have been done differently
The employer acted carefully: it obtained a COT3 through Acas conciliation and ensured the agreement was broadly worded. For employees, the lesson is clear — if you have any doubt about the accuracy of statements made by your employer, do not sign a settlement until you have clarified the position. Once signed, a COT3 is very hard to overturn.
Why this matters
This decision reinforces the finality of COT3 agreements. Tribunals will not lightly set them aside, even where the employee feels they were misled. It also highlights that broad settlement clauses can capture future claims if they are connected to the original dispute. Anyone considering a settlement should seek advice before signing, especially if they are unrepresented.
Similar cases
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.
Social worker's constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed despite being late
A social worker with 14 years' service resigned after raising concerns about a colleague's return to work. Her claim was filed 7 days late, but the tribunal allowed it to proceed due to ongoing ACAS negotiations and her mental health.
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.
Dismissed for crashing a van and trying to hide it – protected disclosures did not save him
A depot technician with 12 years' service was dismissed after reversing a work van into a tree and attempting to repair the damage himself. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding it was for misconduct, not because of his protected disclosures.