/settlement-agreement-review

1. Flag apparent gaps against the s.203 ERA 1996 conditions for a solicitor to confirm. This skill does not rule on validity. As legal context: if a condition is genuinely missing, the agreement does not contract out of statutory rights and the employee can still claim — so each gap matters and must be confirmed by a qualified adviser.
2. Review the substantive terms against the party's position (employer or employee).
3. Surface tax issues (ITEPA 2003 — termination payments, PENP). Never present computed figures as authoritative — they are prompts for an accountant to sign off.
4. Output a marked-up version with comments or a clean draft.

Settlement agreement (s.203 ERA 1996)

Purpose

A settlement agreement is the standard vehicle for compromising employment claims. It must comply with the conditions in s.203 ERA 1996 [CITE NEEDED — s.203 ERA 1996] (and equivalent provisions in other statutes — EqA 2010 s.144 [CITE NEEDED — s.144 EqA 2010], TULR(C)A 1992 s.288, etc.) to validly settle the statutory claims it purports to cover. Otherwise the employee remains free to bring a claim. This skill flags apparent gaps in those conditions; it does not rule on whether an agreement is valid — that is for a qualified adviser to confirm.

The other valid vehicle is an ACAS COT3 (recorded by the ACAS conciliator) — no s.203 conditions apply. COT3s are simpler; settlement agreements allow more bespoke terms.

s.203 statutory conditions (cumulative — all must be satisfied)