It is increasingly clear that a minor but significant wording error in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 virtually invalidated the compromise agreements. Section 147 of the Act sets out the terms of a compromise agreement under which a potential applicant enters into a binding transaction with the respondent, in which he or she is generally prevented from discriminating against a financial payment. The law calls it a ”qualifying compromise treaty,” but the old concept of a compromise agreement will likely continue to be used. Darren Newman, editor-in-chief of the consultant, explains why the development of the Compromise Agreements Provisions of the Equality Act 2010 could effectively mean that no compromise agreement is applicable under the law. Transaction agreements can be a useful tool to avoid litigation and ensure security, provided they are properly developed, so as to jeopardize all potential future claims. If you are considering such an agreement, we can help. In a potentially crucial development, the Law Society weighed in and announced on its website that it had given the consultant`s opinion on the matter. It is considered that neither the lawyers who worked for the employee prior to the conclusion agreement, nor the lawyers to whom the applicant is subject for consultation with the agreement, can be independent advisers within the meaning of the law. The Law Society concludes that there is ”no way” to make compromise agreements applicable under the Equality Act 2010. The compromise agreements are intended to protect potentially vulnerable applicants from accidental or too inexpensive signing of their rights by providing that they must have received independent advice on the terms and effects of the agreement.
In the definition of an independent councillor in the s.147, the problem arises with the Equality Act 2010. Under the Act`s S.147 (4), an independent advisor may be a qualified lawyer, a certified union official or a councillor. The problem is point 147 (5), which is to ensure that the consultant is truly independent. Section 147(a) (a) stipulates that the advisor cannot be a party to the contract or complaint (in this context, the contract is the compromise agreement itself). Paragraph 147, paragraph 5, point (d), it is then stated that an independent adviser cannot be ”a person acting for a person referred to in point a) … regarding the contract or complaint.” Since the applicant is clearly a ”part” of the contract or complaint and is therefore a subject to point a), this must exclude any person acting for the applicant with respect to the disputed dispute or compromise agreement. It doesn`t make sense. This means that a lawyer charged by the worker with representing his interests, pursuing a right or negotiating a transaction is not considered an independent advisor, since he is acting on behalf of the applicant involved in the litigation. But it is precisely these lawyers who, every year, negotiate and sign thousands of compromise agreements – not to mention union and advisory representatives who fall into the same trap.