Hughes v Transport For London

A claimant cannot reopen concluded employment proceedings merely because a settlement or compensation award later proves less advantageous than expected. Where the original unfair-dismissal claim was compromised or determined by an award, a later attempt to obtain further compensation because of changed pension circumstances is outside the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Such proceedings may properly be struck out as an abuse of process and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The claimant had been dismissed in 1994 and had obtained compensation in connection with his unfair-dismissal proceedings. Many years later, following recalculation of his pension entitlement, he sought to pursue a further claim concerning his employment pension. The Employment Tribunal struck out the claim as an abuse of process and refused a review.

The claimant appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the appeal under rule 3(10), following an earlier sift under rule 3. The central issue was whether the concluded compensation or compromise could be reopened through fresh proceedings.

1. Appeal dismissed. The application under rule 3(10) was dismissed, together with the appeal.
2. The claimant’s original unfair-dismissal proceedings had concluded with compensation paid by the employer or awarded by the court. Whether the amount was £3,000 or £5,000, the fact that the outcome later appeared less favourable because of pension changes did not create jurisdiction to reopen the award, accepted offer or concluded proceedings.
3. The Employment Tribunal was correct to strike out the fresh claim. Reopening a concluded claim in these circumstances was an abuse of process and had no reasonable prospect of success.
4. The reference to abuse of process described a technical procedural conclusion. The decisive point was that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to correct a settlement or award retrospectively because the claimant later considered it inadequate.

• Employment Tribunal: The claim was struck out as an abuse of process on 27 March 2009, with full reasons dated 2 July 2009. A review was refused on 30 June 2011.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The appeal was dismissed under rule 3(10).