The Claimant left the employment of the school after signing a COT3 agreement which had the effect of preventing her from bringing any further claims against the school, the governing body or the Respondent (London Borough of Islington). The Claimant applied for a job with a different school operated by the Respondent. Her application was not successful, and she sought to bring a claim against the Respondent in which she alleged that she had been subjected to detriment on the ground of the same disclosures that had formed the basis of the letter before action. The ET held that the COT3 barred her from bringing such a claim and she appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Objectively, the intention of the COT3 agreement was to settle of all existing and potential future claims against the Respondent and others arising from the Claimant’s allegations that she had made protected disclosures whilst she was in the Respondent’s employment at the first school and that, as a result, had been subject to detriment. The use of the words “whether arising from her employment with the Employer, its termination or from events occurring after this agreement” was clearly intended to exclude claims in respect of future alleged acts of alleged detriment said to be causally connected to the same allegations of having previously made protected disclosures.