This decision underscores the difficulty of finding a way out of decisions that can be made by those who will engage in negotiations in which they wish to retain the privilege of third parties. In most cases, the solution is simply to say nothing about these negotiations in the conciliation agreement. However, if a party (usually a complainant) is wary of the truth of what was said by another party during these negotiations or wishes to provide contractual protection of its position, decisions are generally distilled: while an employer wants to ensure that the terms and circumstances of a transaction contract remain confidential, it is important to ensure that the agreement , and in particular the confidentiality clauses, are well drafted. This means that the agreement is less likely to be challenged and helps to avoid adverse publicity or a violation of the employer`s legal obligations to the worker in the future. In the continuation of the appeal process, BGC argued that the transaction agreement dealt only with previous communications and that, as such, the privilege had not been set aside. While the judgment does not take up this argument in detail, it is clear that not all documents mentioned in a treaty are included in this treaty and that it is possible to refer (in the strict sense) to communications without prejudice, without renouncing privileges. Nevertheless, there is a good reason why the parties to the trial will remain there: when one affirms, accepts or relies on the content of a privileged communication in an open document, one takes a risk. To the extent that the confidentiality clause is limited to these elements, it is normally entirely acceptable, since these clauses are beneficial to both parties and do not have a major negative impact on persons outside both parties. However, problems arise when the employer attempts to extend the cycle too widely to the point where it wants to prevent the worker from expressing legitimate concerns in the public interest, making the confidentiality clause null and void. It would be invalidated and unenforceable as soon as it considered a disability and a violation of workers` right to a protected disclosure (i.e. whistleblowing) under the Public Disclosure Act (PIDA) of 1998 (as amended by the Enterprise Reform and Regulation Act 2013). Under this act, a worker can make a protected advertisement against his employer as long as he is satisfied that disclosure is in the public interest.
In the second part of this briefing, I will talk about how more general information, such as important business information. B, can be kept confidential and general exceptions that are often included in transaction agreements. It is therefore important to remember that these agreements do not exist only with respect to allegations of moral harassment and sexual harassment, but that they include situations such as poor performance, reprehensible behaviour, long-term absences and dismissals. The High Court should be examined by court to determine whether the confidentiality clause existed: it is customary for the transaction agreements to contain a confidentiality clause requiring both parties to keep confidential the terms of the transaction agreement and the circumstances of the termination. As a result, transaction agreements can sometimes be characterized as confidentiality agreements, as they are often designed to prevent the disclosure of certain information.