Ms W Hanchard v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust: 2301209/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]By a letter dated 6 October 2023, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal to request a Judgment by Consent on agreed terms, which specifically stated that recoupment would apply and that the respondent was seeking a Judgment by Consent as opposed to settlement because it is obliged to seek approval from HM Treasury and NHSE before entering into settlement agreements for ex gratia payments, and no such approval was needed if the respondent was ordered to pay an agreed sum by the Tribunal.[2]Judgment by Consent was dated 1 November 2023 and sent to the parties on 14 November 2023. The judgment specifically stated that recoupment would apply to the award.[3]By an email dated 13 November 2023, the claimant forwarded the respondent’s email of 6 October 2023 to the Tribunal in an attempt to speed up the resolution of the matter.[4]By a letter dated 20 January 2024 the claimant gave an indication that she wanted to appeal and to ask for her compensation back.[5]The claimant also wrote to the Tribunal on 14 and 15 February 2024. In the letter dated 15 February 2024, the claimant added that she understood that there may be some money recouped but not all of it. She stated that she believed a smaller amount would be recouped. She added: “ I was advised by the respondent to seek legal advice which I tried…It was so hard to get legal advice at the stage I was at having won at the tribunal without paying for this so I sought information from Citizen’s Advice.”[6]On 10 June 2024, Acting Regional Employment Judge Andrews wrote to the claimant to inform her that the rules relating to recoupment from award of compensation are set out in the relevant regulations and there is no judicial discretion as to their application and that if there was an agreed settlement between the parties in a format to which those rules apply, then recoupment would inevitably follow. She informed the claimant that although her letters referred to an appeal, they would be treated as a Case No: 2301209/2021 11.12 Judgment on reconsideration – no hearing - rules 70 and 73 request for the judgment to be reconsidered. The claimant was asked to send in any correspondence in which the respondent told her that a judgment by consent was the only way in which the matter could be settled.[7]The claimant replied and forwarded a number of emails from the respondent to the claimant some of which were without prejudice.[8]The respondent sent a further letter dated 14 June 2024 which stated as follows: “It is a matter of fact that the Trust did not have nor was it able to receive the required HM Treasury approval for discussions to be had between the parties in order to reach agreement to settle this matter by way of a COT3 or otherwise. The Respondent was therefore unable to agree any remedy with the Claimant that went beyond contractual entitlement in compensation relating to termination of employment, as the Trust is required to comply and operate within strict regularly parameters. The Claimant was informed that the Trust was therefore only able to settle this matter and avoid the parties progressing to a Remedy Hearing by way of a Court Order, which would be subject to recoupment, as it was only able to offer awards that could be granted by the Tribunal in the event the parties proceeded to a Remedy Hearing. In relation to recoupment, it is the Respondent’s position that it was made clear to the Claimant, by way of the wording of the Judgment by Consent which was agreed between the parties, that recoupment would apply as a matter of law and the level of recoupment was not something that was within the Trust’s knowledge as it was to be confirmed by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). 9. The claimant then sent a further email asking for a reconsideration of the judgment and for the monies sent to DWP to be sent back to her, and for the respondent to agree to a consent order excluding recoupment. 10. The Tribunal is satisfied that the claimant was made aware by the respondent that recoupment would apply to the judgment by consent and was encouraged to seek legal advice of the consequences of the Judgment by Consent, which, it was explained to the claimant, was the only way the respondent could proceed without Treasury Approval and without attending a remedy hearing. There is therefore no basis on which the judgment by consent can be revoked or amended and the judgment by consent is confirmed. Employment Judge Rice-Birchall 13 August 2024 Case Number: 2301209/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms W Hanchard Respondent: Oxleas NHS Foundation TrustREASONS
[1]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because the claimant’s application contains medical evidence which is generic and refers to “the impact of a tribunal”. It makes no specific reference to the impact on you of the judgment being available publicly.[2]As stated in the decision of 10 April 2025, the Employment Tribunal Rules (the Rules) provide that all judgments are required to be entered onto the public register. However, under rule 49 of the Rules, the Tribunal has the power to make an order preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of the proceedings (which would include the Judgment) as it considers necessary in the interests of justice or to protect the rights of any person under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Before making such an order a Tribunal must give full weight to the principle of open justice and the right under the ECHR to freedom of expression.[3]The Tribunal still does not consider that your application discloses sufficient information to make it necessary in the interests of justice or to protect your Convention rights to make an order to anonymise the Judgment, considering the principle of open justice referred to above. You have still not provided any supporting evidence to demonstrate that the full Judgment being available to the public has affected your health, other than to say that there has been an impact of a Tribunal, nor have you still set out what you allege is "sensitive information" in the Judgment which is having an effect on you and why. Date: 4 June 2025 Approved by