In the case of Arvunescu v Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd the Court of Appeal considered whether a claimant was precluded from bringing a claim for victimisation under a COT3 agreement, which the parties had entered into to settle a previous race discrimination claim brought by the claimant against the respondent.

The claimant alleged that he had been turned down for a post with a wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent in Germany due to the race discrimination claim. He therefore sought to bring a claim for victimisation under s 112 Equality Act 2010 on the basis that the respondent had assisted the Germany company to victimise him.

However, the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal both found that the victimisation claim fell within the scope of the COT3 agreement so could not be the subject of proceedings. On appeal, the claimant argued that the COT3 should be interpreted narrowly to exclude employment in Germany, or alternatively that the conduct which gave rise to the victimisation claim occurred after the original employment and that the COT3 did not apply.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the employment tribunal and the EAT had applied the correct approach to assessing whether the agreement, construed objectively, applied to the claim; the fact that the words used in the COT3 were difficult to interpret did not necessarily mean they were ambiguous.

The relevant conduct in Arvunescu had occurred prior to the COT3 being entered into and the COT3 applied to existing claims. Based on the wording of the COT3, the question was whether the claim arose ‘indirectly’ in connection with the claimant’s employment with the respondent and the court concluded that it did.