The High Court accepted this decision and confirmed that the payment of monies earned as part of a transaction agreement cannot be avoided if an ex-employee is found to have breached a confidentiality clause, unless confidentiality is a real condition of the settlement agreement. A confidentiality clause could be explicitly subject to the condition of a COT3, especially if confidentiality is sufficiently important in the framework of the agreement, for example. B if a breach of an employer violation could pose a significant commercial risk, but the wording of that confidentiality clause was not sufficiently clear, that confidentiality was a condition of COT3. Possible outcomes include the extension of the obligation to provide legal advice to explicitly cover the “nature and limitations” of a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement and the obligation for employers to treat pre-defined recommendations with a specific text. Note that a likely application provision will be that if the required text is not used, the entire transaction contract is void. An essential condition of a transaction contract is that workers entering into a transaction contract must obtain legal advice on their terms and effects. This gives them a good level of protection against these clauses. Mr. Steels had filed a series of labour court appeals against his former employer, Duchy Farm Kennels Limited (“duchy”).
The parties entered into an agreement that was established as part of an agreement on COT3 (the “agreement”). In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the duchy agreed to pay Mr. Steels $15,500 in 47 weekly payments. The headlines are a little misleading about the widespread use of confidentiality clauses. Concern for their use focuses on allegations of moral harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace. The High Court had to be examined by court to determine whether the confidentiality clause was as follows: the crucial question was whether the confidentiality clause was a condition of the contract for which the other party would have the right to be dealt with any other contractual undertaking or an interim period for which an offence would not give the employer the right to no longer pay. Employers therefore do not want individuals discussing charges and accounts to discuss as if they have “won” in order to avoid false guilty decisions with respect to the charges. Another question is who is “bound” by a confidentiality clause. Transaction agreements are usually signed only by the parties to the dispute. However, if the agreement defines a “party” that includes agents and representatives, this could be read to create binding obligations for the party`s lawyers. Therefore, even if he is not directly involved in the transaction agreement, a lawyer may, in addition to the general obligation of the lawyer to maintain the trust of the clients according to the rules of ethics, be bound by the rules of confidentiality as the agent of the client.