University of East London  IRLR 552 stated that the purpose of the settlement agreements was to settle certain identifiable claims. The Court of Appeal held that a worker had the right to know exactly what he was paying and that settlement agreements had to be adapted to the particular circumstances of the case. The particular or potential rights that must be covered by a concord agreement must be identified either by a clear general description, such as “unjustified unjustified termination”, “unjustified automatic termination to assert a legal right”, “discrimination on grounds of sex”, or by reference to the section of the law that bases the right (a reference to all claims under the ERA 1996: not sufficiently identifying the regulated claim). The decision also clarifies that best practice would be to concretely identify the claim to be settled: by providing information on the nature of the allegations and the status under which they are made or on the basis of the common law of the claim in the form of a brief effective and legal description (e.g.B. unlawful wage deductions under Part II of the ERA 1996, statutory severance pay under Article 135 of the ERA 1996 or unfair dismissal under Sections 94 and 98A of the ERA 1996). In Hilton UK Hotels Ltd v. McNaughton EATS/0059/04, an employee stated that she had rights she “believed” she had against her employer in a settlement agreement. However, the EAT found that an employee was unable to pay future duties that she was unaware of when the settlement agreement was concluded. In addition, when a worker draws up a contract on the basis of a future right, the worker must meet the requirements of the applicable legal provision. . .