Puplampu v Pathfinder Mental Health Service NHS Trust

In granting permission to appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was arguable that a representative’s ostensible authority in Employment Tribunal proceedings did not extend to settling the claim without the client’s express authority. Particular caution was required where the representative was neither a solicitor nor a Citizens’ Advice Bureau. The issue was especially arguable where the claim form appeared to be made by the applicant but had been signed by the representative, and where the representative’s interests might conflict with those of the client. The court also recognised the position of an innocent opposing party and encouraged alternative dispute resolution.

The applicant sought permission to appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning a settlement of Employment Tribunal proceedings arranged through Direct Legal and mediated through ACAS. The claim form had been completed by Direct Legal but was not signed by the applicant. The proposed appeal concerned the extent of Direct Legal’s ostensible authority to settle the proceedings, including whether the settlement required the applicant’s direct agreement in circumstances involving a possible conflict between representative and client interests.

1. Permission granted. The Court of Appeal considered that the proposed appeal raised an arguable issue of considerable general importance concerning the reach of ostensible authority in the settlement of Employment Tribunal proceedings.
2. The court considered it arguable that ostensible authority might not extend to completion of a settlement, at least in circumstances such as these, without the client’s express authority. The absence of the applicant’s signature on the IT1 form was not conclusive, but was a relevant starting point because the form was expressed as being made by the applicant.
3. The court relied on the caution identified in Freeman v Sovereign Chicken Ltd [1991] ICR 853, particularly where the settling representative was neither a solicitor nor a Citizens’ Advice Bureau.
4. The court recognised that the respondent appeared to be an innocent party and that ACAS had mediated the settlement. Those considerations did not make the proposed legal argument unarguable, particularly given the alleged conflict between Direct Legal’s interests and those of its client.
5. Lord Justice Keene emphasised that the appeal would face substantial obstacles. The information in the IT1 might nevertheless have indicated that Direct Legal was held out as the applicant’s representative, and Direct Legal might be regarded as a regular professional representative whose authority ordinarily included power to settle. The court therefore urged caution and made its ADR services available.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal was granted. The court did not determine the merits of the proposed appeal.