Charles Melvin Bathgate v Technip UK Limited & Ors

A qualifying settlement agreement under section 147 of the Equality Act 2010 must relate to an actual complaint, or to circumstances in which the grounds for a complaint are known. A clause listing statutory claims or protected characteristics cannot validly waive an unknown future discrimination claim.

A seafarer is a person habitually employed to work on board a ship. Temporary shore-based work does not, without more, end that status. Under section 108, post-employment rights are measured by whether the conduct would have contravened the Act during employment. The provision cannot confer a discrimination claim on a former seafarer whose employment fell outside the Act’s territorial scope.

The claimant, a British chief officer employed by a Singapore company, was made redundant after about 20 years’ service. He had worked principally on a Bahamas-registered vessel outside United Kingdom and EEA waters, but undertook shore-based roles during his final months.

His redundancy agreement purported to settle age-discrimination claims. After it was signed, the respondents decided not to make an additional pension-related payment because he was aged 61 or over. The Employment Tribunal held that the agreement validly settled his claim, but that it had jurisdiction over the post-employment complaint.

The claimant appealed the settlement ruling. The respondents cross-appealed on territorial jurisdiction. The central issues were whether section 147 permitted settlement of an unknown future complaint and whether sections 81 and 108 of the Equality Act 2010 permitted the claim.

1. Claimant’s appeal allowed, but respondents’ cross-appeal also allowed and the claim dismissed. The agreement was ineffective to settle the age-discrimination complaint because it did not meet section 147(3)(b) of the Equality Act 2010.

2. The expression “the particular complaint” requires an actual complaint, or a situation in which the facts giving rise to it are known. It does not encompass a claim that may arise in the future but whose existence is unknown. A detailed list of statutory claim types or section numbers remains a general waiver where it does not identify a known complaint. The statutory protection cannot be avoided by contractual wording which labels unknown future claims as intimated, asserted, or particular complaints.

3. The claimant remained a seafarer for section 81 purposes. The words “on board” describe habitual employment on a ship and do not require physical presence aboard a vessel at the moment of the alleged discrimination. His extensive ship-based career, unchanged role, anticipated return to sea, and short final period ashore supported that conclusion.

4. Section 108(1)(b) makes post-employment protection conditional on whether equivalent conduct during the former relationship would contravene the Act. It does not create a new territorial basis for a claim. Since the claimant’s ship-based employment outside United Kingdom and EEA waters on a foreign-flagged vessel was outside the section 81 regime, the decision would not have contravened the Act during employment. He could therefore acquire no post-employment claim under section 108.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The claimant’s appeal against the settlement ruling was allowed. The respondents’ cross-appeal on jurisdiction was allowed, with the result that the discrimination claim was dismissed.
• Employment Tribunal: Held that the settlement agreement compromised the claim, but that it had jurisdiction to determine the post-employment age-discrimination complaint.