Court of Appeal decision in Hinton/. The University of East London  IRLR 552 found that the transaction agreements were intended to settle certain identifiable claims. The Court of Appeal held that an employee had the right to know exactly what he would deny and that the transaction agreements had to be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case. Special or potential rights covered by a transaction agreement must be identified either by a clear general reference, such as “unfair dismissal,” “automatic unfair dismissal to assert a legal right,” “gender discrimination,” or by reference to the section of the law that establishes the law (a reference to all ERDF rights in 1996 will not sufficiently identify the claim found). The decision also indicated that it would be useful to identify the claim to be settled in practice, by providing information on the nature of the allegations and the status under which they are collected, or on the basis of the common law of the claim in the form of a brief factual and legal description (for example. B illegitimate wage deductions under Part II of the ERDF in 1996, statutory severance pay under Section 135 of the 1996 ERA, or unjustified dismissals under Sections 94 and 98A of the 1996 ERDF). The forsters clause was extremely broad and Forsters could, in the circumstances of his case, use it to cover this potential risk of negligence. Employers should view this decision as an important reminder of the need to take the time to verify whether the release and waiver provisions are properly formulated in a transaction agreement. In the recent decision of The State of Western Australia/Leicester  WASCA 153, the WA Court of Appeal considered a settlement agreement for various claims of an insurer and whether the rejection had been extended to a claim relating to the same underlying event that had not been identified at the time of the transaction. If you are the defendant, then you will want to ensure that all affiliates of the opposite party are covered by the release of claims in order to broaden the scope of the agreement. However, even if you are able to assert your rights, you can accept such a provision if none of your related companies has a viable right.
Sometimes the relationship will be so strained that the parties will want to resolve all claims or issues related to the relationship between them. In this case, the definition of the claim should be broadened, if necessary. b) the terms of the agreement should be defined in the event of acceptance and, if the transaction agreement contains a provision explaining the confidentiality obligations, the parties generally agree that the terms of the transaction agreement must remain confidential. But think about whether you want to be able to share the existence of the transaction agreement with someone other than the parties to the agreement.