After a few weeks, DFK terminated the weekly payments because it found that Mr. Steels had passed the transaction on to a third party, which it said violated the confidentiality clause and was therefore not required to continue the agreed payments. The breach of confidentiality occurred when Mr. Steels mentioned the fact of the comparison and the amounts to be given to Mr. Mulliner (who had come to his house to name a new fence) and who was a former DFK employee who had gone in poor conditions. On a circular route, the news reached DFK`s MD. In this case, the COT3 agreement contained explicit confidentiality provisions. The employer claimed that the former employee had breached these confidentiality obligations and therefore suspended all other staggered payments under COT3. The employee sued the employer for his payments. The High Court found, however, that in other cases confidentiality could be conditional. B, for example, if the allegations in question or the identity of the parties are extremely sensitive. The High Court found that, in such a situation, parties were advised to make it clear that the confidentiality period was a condition of the agreement and to expressly provide for what should happen in the event of a breach of confidentiality (e.g.
B, the former employee must repay all funds paid by the employer). In such cases, it is up to the innocent to prove that the offence is so serious that it is entitled to cancel the contract and is no longer bound by its conditions. This is a fairly high bar, and respect for these values depends on the surrounding facts. It is also interesting to note that the employer may not want to completely terminate the contract if it wants elements of the transaction contract to be maintained, such as the worker`s agreement. B not to assert its rights (which may in any case be prescribed) or to make negative comments about the employer or to publish it. A COT3 is a legally binding agreement for the settlement of real or potential rights before the labour tribunal and prevents a worker from asserting or pursuing claims before the labour tribunal. The purpose of a COT3 is similar to that of a transaction agreement, although the wording tends to be more concise. Was Mr. Steels` action a reprehensible violation of an interim delay? The test is this: Had Mr. Steels clearly shown, from the point of view of a sensible person, “the intention to abandon the treaty and refuse altogether”? No no. Mr. Steels` offence was never probable and did not cause commercial embarrassment to DFK or other business problems.
The risk of triggering costly and timeless claims from imitators was very low, especially since the amount of the litigation was not very high. Mr. Steels and his employer, DFK, entered into an agreement on COT3 in which his claims against DFK were compensated for various matters, including unfair dismissal.