The claimant and his former employers had compromised the employee’s claim for damages, but the claimant then sought to sue for stigma damages after these were awarded elsewhere. The general language of the release was sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the claims which Mr Naeem sought to pursue.
Held: Since all the claims known to the parties were identified and met in full, the broad language of the release must be taken to refer to other claims, not at that stage known or identified. However, the claimant’s appeal was allowed since it would have been inconscionable to allow the company to rely on the release. The overriding principle now to be applied was for the judge to attempt to do justice between the parties. Though costs might ordinarily be awarded to a successful party, the court could make a different order if justice so required in the particular facts of any case.
Judges:
Chadwick and Buxton LJJ,
Citations:
Times 02-Mar-2000, [2000] ICR 1410
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali, Khan and others (No 1); BCCI v Ali HL 1-Mar-2001
Cere Needed Releasing Future Claims
A compromise agreement which appeared to claim to settle all outstanding claims between the employee and employer, did not prevent the employee later claiming for stigma losses where, at the time of the agreement, the circumstances which might lead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78148
