Judgment by consent and recoupment: a former employee's misunderstanding
A former employee agreed to a judgment by consent to settle an unfair dismissal claim, but later challenged the recoupment of £16,000 in jobseeker's allowance. The tribunal refused to reconsider.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #judgment-by-consent
- #recoupment
- #unfair-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent NHS Trust.
- The claimant was dismissed and brought an unfair dismissal claim.
- The parties agreed a judgment by consent to avoid a remedy hearing.
- The respondent could not settle via COT3 without HM Treasury approval.
- Recoupment of jobseeker's allowance applied to the compensatory award.
Timeline
-
Dismissal date
The claimant's employment ended, starting the period for which recoupment applies.
-
Respondent requests judgment by consent
The respondent wrote to the tribunal requesting a judgment by consent because it lacked HM Treasury approval for a settlement.
-
Judgment by consent issued
The tribunal issued a judgment by consent ordering the respondent to pay £16,886.80, with recoupment of £16,000 for jobseeker's allowance.
-
Claimant applies for reconsideration
The claimant applied to reconsider the judgment, disputing the recoupment.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Rice-Birchall confirmed the original judgment, finding no basis to revoke or amend it.
-
Second reconsideration application
The claimant applied again for reconsideration, citing health impacts from public judgment.
-
Second reconsideration refused
The tribunal refused the application, finding insufficient evidence to justify anonymisation.
The legal issue
Whether a judgment by consent should be reconsidered because the claimant misunderstood how recoupment of jobseeker's allowance would affect the award, and because the respondent could not settle via a COT3 agreement without Treasury approval.
The outcome
The tribunal refused to reconsider the judgment by consent. The key reason was that the claimant had been informed that recoupment would apply and had been encouraged to seek legal advice. The respondent, an NHS Trust, could not settle via a COT3 agreement without HM Treasury approval, so a judgment by consent was the only way to avoid a remedy hearing.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £886.80
- Compensatory award: £16,000 (subject to recoupment of jobseeker's allowance)
- Total: £16,886.80
Lessons & takeaways
- If you agree to a judgment by consent, ensure you understand the terms, including any recoupment of benefits – the tribunal will not later change them just because you misunderstood.
- Public sector employers may be unable to settle ex gratia payments without Treasury approval, making a judgment by consent the only route – this limits your options.
- Seek legal advice before agreeing to any settlement or judgment, especially if you are unrepresented – the tribunal expects you to have done so.
- Recoupment of jobseeker's allowance is mandatory under regulations – the tribunal has no discretion to waive it, even if you did not expect it.
A settlement that wasn't a settlement
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward agreement can unravel when one party doesn't fully grasp the implications. The former employee had won their unfair dismissal claim against Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust and was expecting compensation. But instead of a simple payout, the Trust could only settle through a judgment by consent – a court order – because it lacked HM Treasury approval for a COT3 settlement. The judgment included a recoupment provision, meaning £16,000 of the compensatory award would be repaid to the Department for Work and Pensions to cover jobseeker's allowance the claimant had received.
What the employer could have done differently
The Trust did explain that recoupment would apply and encouraged the claimant to seek legal advice. But the claimant, acting in person, struggled to get advice and believed only a smaller amount would be recouped. The Trust could have been more explicit about the likely impact, perhaps with a worked example. However, the tribunal found that the claimant had been informed and had even forwarded the Trust's email about the judgment by consent to the tribunal, indicating awareness.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a cautionary tale for anyone considering a judgment by consent, especially against a public sector employer. Recoupment of benefits is mandatory under the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's and Income Support) Regulations 1996 – the tribunal cannot waive it. If you have received jobseeker's allowance during the period covered by the compensatory award, you will have to repay it. The only way to avoid recoupment is to settle via a COT3 agreement, which may not be possible if the employer lacks Treasury approval. Always get independent legal advice before signing anything, and if you cannot afford a solicitor, ask Citizens Advice or a law centre to review the terms.
Similar cases
Resigned from a GP surgery: constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeds
A former employee of The High Street Surgery won her constructive unfair dismissal claim after resigning due to her employer's conduct. The Watford tribunal awarded £5,687.21 but dismissed her disability discrimination claims.
Redundancy dismissal and unauthorised deductions: employer's failure to respond leads to £15,298 award
A former employee won £15,298 after being unfairly dismissed by redundancy and having wages unlawfully deducted. The employer failed to present a valid response.
Unfair dismissal win for employee who represented himself
A former employee won his unfair dismissal claim against NFS Hotel Technology Limited, receiving over £28,700 in compensation. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
Unfair dismissal win after employer ignored ACAS code: compensation uplifted
A former employee of Intu Uxbridge was awarded £14,624.11 after being unfairly dismissed, with a 10% uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice.