The Claimant complained about the discontinuance of PHI payments but lost his case at the ET. He brought a further claim claiming the loss of of PHI payment and pension. The PHI claim was struck out; the pension claim was not. The Claimant instituted an appeal including the case number from the second ET claim. Following communications between the parties and ACAS, a COT 3 was signed in relation to the second claim's case number. The EAT was not informed about this and directed that the Claimant's appeal be heard. The Respondent replied saying the claim had been settled but the Claimant wrote that it was his intention that the appeal be continued.

The EAT ruled that the COT 3 had the effect that all the complaints contained within the second claim had been compromised. The EAT concluded that the words of a settlement agreement, objectively construed, compromise a complaint which has been struck out, and the natural and logical implication is that they also compromise a related appeal. The appeal was dismissed.