A Egejuru v KPMG LLP: 6013745/2025 and 6020154/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s application for a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 30 July 2025 has no reasonable prospects of success and is dismissed. The Tribunal’s judgment is confirmed.REASONS
[1]The Claimant brought claim 6013745/2025 against the Respondent on 18 April 2025 and brought claim 6020154/2025 on 30 May 2025.[2]On 18 July 2025, ACAS notified the Tribunal that the Claimant had reached a binding settlement with the Respondent in respect of claims 6013745/2025 and 6020154/2025 (the “COT3 settlement”).[3]The Claimant wrote to the Tribunal on 21 July 2025 in the light of that settlement indicating that she wished to withdraw both claims.[4]The effect of that withdrawal is that the claims come to an end (see Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 “the 2024 Rules”). Rule 51 of the 2024 Rules provides that where a claim is withdrawn it must be dismissed unless the party withdrawing the claim had at the time expressed a wish to reserve the right to bring a further claim and the Tribunal is satisfied that there would be legitimate reason for doing so or that the Tribunal believes it is not in the interests of justice to do so. The Claimant did not express any reservations about her claims being dismissed at the time of the withdrawal.[5]A judgment was made by Legal Officer Anju Sundeep on 30 July 2025 to dismiss both claims under Rule 51.[6]On 4 August 2025, the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal indicating that she wished to withdraw her request to close her claims. She indicated that KPMG had breached the settlement agreement and that she considered it “null and void”.[7]On 7 August 2025, the Respondent wrote to the Tribunal objecting to the Claimant’s request to reopen her claims. The Respondent noted that the Claimant was dissatisfied with the amount of tax deducted from the settlement sum. The Respondent argued that this is a matter for the Claimant to discuss with HMRC.[8]Later on 7 August 2025 and on 31 August 2025, the Claimant wrote again to the Tribunal. She indicated that her reason for requesting to re-open her claims was that the Respondent had not deducted the appropriate amount of tax on the settlement agreement, and therefore that they had not complied with the obligation to pay the full settlement amount save for statutory deductions. Request for reconsideration[9]The Claimant’s correspondence of 4, 7 and 31 August 2025 indicates an intention to request reconsideration of the judgment dated 30 July 2025 and has accordingly been considered as an application under Rule 70 of the 2024 Rules. This Rule sets out the process for reconsideration: “(1) The Tribunal must consider any application made under rule 69 (application for reconsideration). (2) If the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application must be refused and the Tribunal must inform the parties of the refusal. (3) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the Tribunal must send a notice to the parties specifying the period by which any written representations in respect of the application must be received by the Tribunal, and seeking the views of the parties on whether the application can be determined without a hearing. The notice may also set out the Tribunal’s provisional views on the application. (4) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the judgment must be reconsidered at a hearing unless the Tribunal considers, having regard to any written representations provided under paragraph (3), that a hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice. (5) If the Tribunal determines the application without a hearing the parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to make further written representations in respect of the application.”[10]There are a number of established principles in respect of reconsideration:a. The Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly, which includes dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues, avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues, and saving expense (Rule 3 of the 2024 Rules);b. The interests of justice allow for a broad discretion in respect of whether reconsideration is appropriate, albeit one that must be exercised judicially (Outasight VB Ltd v Brown [2015] ICR D11 EAT);c. The interests of both parties should be taken into account when deciding whether it is in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment Outasight VB Ltd v Brown [2015] ICR D11 EAT.d. A central aspect of the interests of justice is that there should be finality in litigation, and the jurisdiction to reconsider should be exercised with caution (Ebury Partners Ltd v Acton Davis 2023 EAT 40); Setting aside the COT3 settlement[11]Even without the Claimant’s request to withdraw her claims, the COT3 settlement would act as a bar to continuing with the proceedings unless it is set aside. The Claimant appears to indicate that the COT3 settlement should be set aside on the basis that it is “null and void” as per her correspondence of 4 August 2025.[12]The Claimant stated in her email of 31 August 2025 that “the Respondent has materially breached the COT3 settlement agreement, particularly Clause 5, by failing to notify me of substantial tax deductions, misapplying the 0T tax code, and taxing non-pecuniary damaged unlawfully. These actions deprived me of the opportunity to challenge the tax assessment and resulted in a significant financial loss. In light of these breaches and the interests of justice, I ask that my claims be re-opened.”[13]It is possible to set aside a settlement agreement on common law contractual principles but the grounds for doing so are very limited (see Mrs G Cole v Elders Voice UKEAT/0251/19/VP). It is not sufficient for there to be a breach of the agreement in order for the settlement to be set aside. Rather there must be circumstances which indicate that the agreement was void from the start, such as misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence.[14]The Claimant’s correspondence to the Tribunal has not identified grounds on which the agreement may be set aside. The Respondent has indicated that it was required to apply the tax code 0T as per HMRC rules. While there may have been a lack of clarity as to the amount of tax that would be payable on the settlement prior to the payment being made, the Claimant has not explained why this cannot be resolved through discussions with HMRC.[15]The Claimant has not presented any evidence as to misrepresentation by the Respondent in respect of the COT3 settlement in respect of the taxable amount or otherwise, or any other reason why the COT3 settlement was not valid. The Claimant has not therefore demonstrated that there was reason for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion under Rule 51(b) not to dismiss the claims.Conclusion
[16]Given that the Claimant has not presented evidence indicating that the COT3 settlement should be set aside, there is no reasonable prospect of the Judgment to dismiss the claims being varied or revoked.[17]There is nothing in the Respondent’s correspondence which causes me to consider that it is in the interests of justice to reconsider the Judgment. I have taken into account the interests of both parties and the need for finality in proceedings, including where proceedings come to an end by virtue of a settlement agreement.[18]The reconsideration application is therefore rejected under Rule 70(2) of the 2024 Rules.