A sharp little lesson in the Metro yesterday in relation to the practical value of confidentiality clauses in Tribunal settlement agreements.
Readers of more advanced years will perhaps recall the settlement of an Employment Tribunal claim brought by one of Princess Di’s staff against some part of the Royal Household many years ago. The prospect of carting Princess Di off for a day in Croydon did not appeal to her PR team and the matter was settled on the steps of the Tribunal. Emerging blinking into the glare of the world’s press, the Claimant explained carefully that by the terms of the settlement she could not say how much money she had been paid, but it was “like winning the Lottery”. You see the problem of enforcement, of course. She had disclosed nothing, but somehow at the same time, everything.
Which leads us neatly from the Princess of Wales to Carmarthen, home of Sarah Finch, the McDonalds worker dismissed earlier this year for being a little over-generous with the chocolate sprinkles on a 99p McFlurry. Metro reports that she has received £3,000 by way of settlement, though “without admission of liability”, obviously. The article also makes reference to a sobering negotiation tactic which should fall squarely within the Government’s recent consultation on awarding costs where “undue pressure” is exerted in negotiations. “We have been instructed not to say anything”, said proud mother Tessa Finch while doing exactly the opposite, “but we had them firmly by the knackers”.
And on that happy note, a Merry Festive Season to all our readers around the world, and our thanks for your continuing and growing visits to this blog.
