Thank you for your feedback. Are there any other clauses that I should have included in the COT3 to protect myself apart from the Respondent not pursuing me for legal costs? Thanks

The HR person is my friend and the lawyer prepared the clause. My lawyer didn't have any standard wording for this clause and produced this clause. I was just looking for a fresh perspective to ensure that it was robust enough. Would there be any other clauses that I should look to include to protect myself? Thanks

Thank you for your replies - it's much appreciated. To clarify, I had initially asked that the the reason for my leaving on my personnel record to be amended to "by mutual agreement". The respondent declined as they said that this would be misleading and leave them open to potential claims from other employers. I accepted this would be misleading. The Respondent offered a standard reference. I was happy to accept this but was concerned that if a verbal reference or form was sent to them for a reference that they should adhere to the standard reference only and there should be no negative inference in their responses. This is what was suggested to me by the HR Manager friend of mine. My Lawyer also thought it was fine and has suggested the following wording: The Respondent will provide, upon receipt of a written request from that party to do so, to any employer, employment agency or prospective employer of the Claimant, a reference in respect of the Claimant in the agreed form as set out in Appendix 1 and the Respondent agrees that no reference will be made either directly or indirectly to the Claimant’s dismissal, reason for dismissal and surrounding circumstances of her dismissal and will deal with all oral enquiries for a reference in a manner consistent with that reference. For the avoidance of doubt, in all situations where information regarding the employment of the Claimant by the Respondent is requested by a third party, the Respondent will only refer to the attached reference. I would be grateful if you could advise if: 1) the wording is robust enough 2) if this is the position that I should be pursuing? Apologies in advance for my ignorance.

I asked a friend who is HR manager in a multinational company and she suggested it. I ran it past my lawyer who also thought it was ok.

No - there was no fraud. I worked on the client accounts for over one year each and then the clients turned around and said that they didn't like me and wanted someone else to work the account. I was basically the patsy for the client's grievances against the company. It has been suggested to me that instead of going for "leaving by mutual agreement", I should go for a cast iron clause which prevents the Respondent from disclosing the dismissal, making any reference to the dismissal (inferred or otherwise) and will only adhere to the standard reference in all cases. Is this a good idea? Thanks

The Respondent said that they had two client complaints where the clients did not feel happy with me and so due to under capacity, they were dismissing me for SOSR.

My lawyer is sitting on the fence and saying that if I am not happy then I shouldn't go ahead.

The industry is IT and the reason for dismissal was for some other substantial reason. Thanks

Thanks for your prompt reply. Sorry - what I meant was that in return for a low settlement I wanted the Respondent to agree that the original dismissal was overturned on review (without any admission of liability) and put in a new reason of "by mutual agreement" as I wouldn't go back to work for a company that treated me so badly. Could I ask for this instead? Thanks

Hi, Would appreciate some advice on the following matter. I was dismissed for some other substantial reason several months ago and am now negotiating the terms of the COT3 agreement with the Respondent. I agreed to a low settlement award (less than two months salary) on the basis that the dismissal was overturned and the reason for leaving was changed to "by mutual agreement". The Respondent has come back and said that to do this would be misleading and will instead adhere to the standard reference upon any enquiry from any prospective employer. My queries are: 1) from a HR perspective, how would this affect me going forward? 2) Is this is a reasonable agreement for me? I do believe that I have a strong case. 3) If this is not a fair agreement - please could you advise what I should be asking for? Many thanks

As a novice in this area, I would be grateful if you would give me the benefit of your advice and list the most common mistakes made when pursuing a claim. Apologies if a similar query has already been posted. Many thanks

Hi - would appreciate any advice on how to proceed given the following situation: A few months ago I was dismissed on the grounds of "some other substantial reason". I followed the company's appeal process and was unsuccessful and a result I have lodged a claim at the Employment Tribunal. I submitted my claim and at the last possible moment, the Respondent submitted their response. The document bundle was due last week but has not been submitted. The Respondent has proposed a new timeline with the bundle to be submitted at the middle of next week. My legal representation has been through my home insurance. They have said that we may as well go with the new timeline as to get the claim struck out due to the delay would take just as long. My thoughts are that I am not worried about the reasons for delay by the Respondent. They have not adhered to the timeline and we should pursue the option of getting the claim struck out. Please could you advise on this? Also - I am worried about the capability of the legal representation as there were a number of errors in the claim submitted to the Tribunal. They didn't come back to me with this update despite me emailing them on Monday and only found out the current situation on calling them. Are they just busy or poor? How can I find out how effective my representation actually are? TIA