KB-2023-003510 - [2025] EWHC 1755 (KB)

I now have to deal with item 14 in the Schedule, summarised there as “Attempts made by [the employer company] to settle the dispute with the Claimant were “intended to intimidate the Claimant””. I consider, for reasons that I have already indicated, that the Defendants’ case on these paragraphs is right as well.

Paragraphs 99 to 103 essentially are complaining about events from 4 September 2017 onwards, to put pressure on the claimant to resign, and those are exactly the self-same allegations as the Tribunal considered.

The penultimate bullet point in paragraph 15 of the judgment of the Tribunal refers to: “The respondent subjecting the claimant on multiple occasions to pressure to resign from his position at the respondent”.

That being one of the detriment complaints, the Tribunal then addressed these very matters, essentially at paragraph 139 of the judgment. Paragraph 92 of the judgment refers to what happened before the disciplinary process commenced, with a settlement offer being presented to the Claimant. Paragraphs 100 to 103 deal with a point of law.

But the central paragraph is paragraph 139, which does go over this ground, including the offer on 4 September 2017, and ends with the words “It was not evidence of unfair pressure to resign. The claimant was not subjected to a detriment”.

In my judgment, a plain estoppel arises in respect of these allegations and they cannot be relitigated on the current state of the Employment Tribunal’s judgment. As I have said more than once, in the event that the Claimant succeeds in appealing against any aspect of that judgment, then it is possible that the landscape will change and certain allegations may be capable of being revived, but at the moment, they are covered by those paragraphs of the Tribunal judgment, and it is an abuse to relitigate them here.