Settlement agreement blocks whistleblowing claim: a lesson in legal waivers
A Head of HR Business Partnering who signed a settlement agreement after resigning was barred from bringing whistleblowing claims. The tribunal struck out her case but refused the employer's costs application.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent from 1 April 2020 to 9 July 2021 as Head of HR Business Partnering.
- The claimant resigned on 6 July 2021 and signed a settlement agreement on 13 July 2021.
- The settlement agreement included a waiver of claims under Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which covers whistleblowing detriment.
- The claimant presented claims of automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment on 7 October 2021.
- The tribunal found that the claims were settled by the agreement and struck them out.
- The respondent's application for costs was dismissed.
Timeline
-
Start of agency engagement
The claimant began working for the respondent through an agency in an interim capacity.
-
Direct employment started
The claimant became a direct employee of the respondent.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant raised a grievance about her line manager to the CEO.
-
Resignation
The claimant resigned with immediate effect.
-
Settlement agreement signed
The parties signed a settlement agreement waiving claims including unfair dismissal and detriment under Part V ERA.
-
ACAS early conciliation completed
The claimant completed ACAS early conciliation.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented claims of automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment.
-
Respondent's response
The respondent filed a response seeking to strike out the claims as settled.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard the issue of whether the claims were settled by the agreement.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's claims for automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment were settled by a valid settlement agreement, and whether the employer should be awarded costs.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all of the claimant's claims, finding that they were settled by the settlement agreement signed on 13 July 2021. The agreement explicitly waived claims under Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which covers whistleblowing detriment, and the claimant had received independent legal advice as required by law. The respondent's application for costs was dismissed, as the claimant had not acted unreasonably in bringing the claim.
Lessons & takeaways
- A settlement agreement that meets the statutory requirements (in writing, by a named adviser, etc.) can waive future claims, even if the employee was unaware of them at the time of signing.
- If you have concerns about whistleblowing or other protected disclosures, raise them before signing a settlement agreement — once signed, you may lose the right to bring a claim.
- Tribunals are unlikely to award costs against a litigant in person simply because their claim is weak, unless the claim was unreasonable from the outset.
- Always seek independent legal advice before signing a settlement agreement — the adviser's certificate is a key part of the agreement's validity.
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward settlement agreement can have far-reaching consequences for employees who later wish to bring whistleblowing claims. The claimant, a Head of HR Business Partnering, resigned after raising a grievance about her line manager. She then signed a settlement agreement that included a broad waiver of claims, including those under Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 — the very part that protects whistleblowers from detriment.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal had to decide whether the settlement agreement was valid and whether it barred the claimant's claims for automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment. The agreement met all the statutory requirements: it was in writing, related to the particular proceedings, and the claimant had received independent legal advice from a solicitor who certified compliance. The tribunal therefore struck out the claims.
Why the costs application failed
The respondent sought costs, arguing that the claimant should have known the claim was bound to fail. However, the tribunal noted that the claimant was a litigant in person and had raised a genuine, albeit unsuccessful, argument about the scope of the waiver. The tribunal found that she had not acted vexatiously or unreasonably, and dismissed the costs application.
What this means for similar cases
For employees, this case is a stark reminder to think carefully before signing a settlement agreement. Even if you are not aware of a potential claim at the time, a well-drafted waiver can prevent you from bringing it later. For employers, it confirms that a properly executed settlement agreement is a robust defence against later claims, but that costs applications against litigants in person are not automatic.
Similar cases
Wasted costs application against NHS Trust solicitors dismissed after settlement agreement
A junior doctor's attempt to obtain a wasted costs order against the solicitors for an NHS Trust was dismissed because a 2018 settlement agreement precluded the application and there was no improper conduct.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Staff nurse's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing fails
A tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by a Band 5 staff nurse against Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, including constructive dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and discrimination on grounds of race, age, and religion.
NHS employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims but avoids costs order
An NHS employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were dismissed, but the tribunal refused the Trust's application for costs, finding she had a genuine belief in her case and did not act unreasonably.