Termination Settlement Contract pages Cover and Contents

Termination Settlement Contract pages 01 – 02

Termination Settlement Contract pages 03 – 04

Termination Settlement Contract pages 05 – 06

Termination Settlement Contract pages 07 – 08

Termination Settlement Contract pages 09 – 10

Termination Settlement Contract pages 11 – 12

Termination Settlement Contract pages 13 – 14

Philip Simon Landau was hired and paid by the Whistleblower as a Legal Advisor.

Watson Farley & Williams is legal counsel for the Whistleblower employer and processed the final termination settlement contract.

When a UK law firm merges or dissolves, advisors must securely retain client settlement records for the statutory limitation period, typically 6 years, under the Limitation Act 1980. Under the ICO UK GDPR guidelines, they must uphold client confidentiality, securely manage data transfers, and enforce secure disposal afterward.

Responsibilities During a Firm Merger

• Data Controller Accountability: The original firm acts as the data controller and bears the responsibility of managing personal data appropriately during the transaction protecting data during the sale of a law firm.
• Due Diligence: The merging firms must adhere to the ICO Data Sharing Code of Practice by establishing a lawful basis for transferring files and ensuring the successor firm has robust security measures.
• Client Consent & Confidentiality: Client files cannot be freely treated as assets. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) requires that client confidentiality is maintained, and explicit consent is often necessary before transferring active files to a successor firm SRA guidance on closing down your practice.

Responsibilities During a Firm Dissolution

• Statutory Retention: Client settlement files must be preserved for at least 6 years (or up to 15 years for deeds) to protect against potential professional negligence claims Law Society Guidance on closed files.
• Secure Storage & Minimisation: Under UK GDPR, data should not be kept longer than necessary. Advisers must ensure these closed files are kept highly secure, either by transferring them to an approved storage facility or an alternate authorised firm Law Society advice on managing files.
• Regulatory Reporting: The dissolving firm must formally notify the SRA of the closure, providing details on storage locations and designating a manager whom former clients can contact regarding their files SRA reporting on closures.

The Termination Settlement Contract that was signed 5 December 2013 by the advice of Philip Simon Landau. The terms of termination included reimbursed moving expenses from Weybridge, England to Houston, Texas, USA.

The Whistleblower was technically employed (being paid) through 31 December 2013. There had been plans to visit Denver, Colorado, USA for the Christmas through New Year holiday period and then head to Houston. The Whistleblower did not have a home in Houston to move the family to. Following a period of time, the family got situated and the household goods from England arrived. Once moved in, the Whistleblower submitted expenses to England. Oddly, the human resources (HR) who was implicated in the acts of harassment, discrimination, and defamation, as stated within the 20 September 2013 Grievance document, handled closing out the terms of the Termination Settlement Contract and delivering the money. This was finalized in about April 2014.

There was no communications between Philip Simon Landau and the Whistleblower prior to the request for the legal file. Philip Simon Landau never confirmed that the Company fulfilled the terms through international removal reimbursement costs.

(Looking back, this was ensurance that the Whistleblower would leave England and not be able to easily pursue legal redress.)

Data Protection Act Subject Access Request Detected Fraud

In October 2014, the Whistleblower submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the Data Protection Act.

zzzz

zzzz

Under UK law, law firms are required by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to notify current and former clients of mergers, acquisitions, or closures, and to inform them of how their files and any active undertakings will be handled SRA Firm Closures Guidance. Solicitors owe a continuous duty of care to their clients, even after a firm ceases operating

Solicitors suspended for failing to complete closure. [1, 2, 3]

If your legal advisor’s firm merged, the successor firm typically takes on the liabilities and responsibilities of the previous practice. If the firm dissolved, you may need to track down where your files were transferred or reach out directly to the SRA. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Regarding a Contract Breach

A signed settlement agreement is a legally binding contract under Section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 Settlement Agreement Clauses Explained. The legal consequences depend on who breached the contract: [1, 2]

• Breach by the Advisor: If your concern is that your legal advisor provided negligent advice or mishandled the signing, you can raise a formal complaint with the firm’s complaints partner. If you are unsatisfied, you can escalate the matter to the Legal Ombudsman. [1]zzz
• Breach by the Employer: If the employer fails to pay the agreed settlement sum or violates a term of the agreement, you can pursue a claim for breach of contract in the Employment Tribunal or the civil courts. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Breach by the Employee: If you are found to be in breach of a term in your agreement (e.g., violating a restrictive covenant or confidentiality clause), your employer may sue you for damages or seek an injunction. [1, 2, 3]

xxxx

zzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

UK Law requires that grievers receive a response and conclusion to their grievance. Also, by law grievers must be provided with the opportunity to appeal the decision.

Legal Advisor Philip Simon Landau broke the law and pressed for a performance based termination settlement agreement that would of course serve the abusers and wrong-doers and defraud his client.

The Memo Conclusions from Grievance Hearing 14th October 2013 was never presented to the whistleblower as required by law but placed as a pivotal document within the whistleblowers personnel records to be false evidence that the legal process was followed.

The Whistleblower’s “Legal Advisor”, Philip Simon Landau ignored the serious issues of harassment, discrimination, and health and safety concerns highlighted within the submitted 20 September 2013 Grievance. Philip Simon Landau conspired with the employer and their legal counsel, Rhodri Thomas with Watson, Farley & Williams to gaslight a (illegal) settlement negotiation process. Watson, Farley & Williams had also advised the employee through the successful Tier 2 visa and sponsored dependents process.

Philip Simon Landau allows his client to be further harassed and discriminated against and accept anything that is offered just to escape the abuse.

The 25 October 2013 Philip Simon Landau email confirms his major role in defrauding his client. Philip Simon Landau did not pursue issues of harassment and discrimination with uncapped damage award. The Whistleblower believes that Philip Simon Landau was bribed to ignore the abuse and created a false defamatory instrument that would allow the corrupt and abusive management to not be held accountable for breaching the employment contract of a US citizen sponsored Tier 2 employee and his dependent family members. Further, the Whistleblower believes that everyone name shown on the 25 October 2013 Memo participated in the Conspiracy to Defraud. Everyone of these evil people placed the health and safety of the Whistleblower and his family in danger.

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

The forged personnel record dated 25 October 2013 states that the Grievance has been concluded?

Personnel Records that were obtained a year after these communication through a subject access request citing the Data Protection Act indicate that a Grievance was concluded 25 October 2013. The Memo does not even reference the 20 September 2013 Grievance submitted to the employer and also sent to “Legal Advisor” Philip Simon Landau prior to the 14 October 2013 Grievance Hearing / Meeting attended by Landau’s (future) client.

Landau is participating and a co-conspirator in the fraud to not address censurable conditions such as harassment and discrimination. Landau has also helped the employer to not deal with immigration and Tier 2 sponsorship fraud issues.

There were several communications between the whistleblower and Philip Simon Landau who was hired to help LEGALLY PROCEED through the grievance process on 14 October 2014, the day of the Grievance Hearing!

zzzz

zzz

Uttering forged documents is a crime.

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

The claims made within the submitted 20 September 2013 grievance were never considered. Subsequent communications with Philip Simon Landau finalized a performance based termination settlement contract that was in addition to being false and defamatory also was much less financially.

zzzz

zzzz

Landau Joins the Illegal Whistleblower Retaliation and Conspiracy to Defraud

Contacting a Legal Advisor

On 20 September 2013, a FORMAL GRIEVANCE was submitted to the employer by a USA citizen sponsored Tier 2 visa holder. On 10 October 2013, the griever was called to the office of the Human Resources Manager – EAME, David Nicholson, whereupon a TERMINATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT was proffered. Nicholson wanted to bypass the LEGAL GRIEVANCE PROCESS. Nicholson informed the GRIEVER that he had consulted with OSLO OFFICE LEGAL. Nicholson informed the GRIEVER that it would be required to have a LEGAL ADVISOR to review any TERMINATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

The GRIEVER wanted to proceed through the GRIEVANCE PROCESS. (It was my understanding that it was contractually required by the law of England!). However, in light of the proffered TERMINATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, a search for a LEGAL ADVISOR was made. Employment Solicitor Philip Simon Landau responded.

zzz

zzz

Workplace Grievance (Unredacted) Delivered to Employer 20 September 2013

zzz

zzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

Workplace Grievance (Unredacted) Delivered to Employer 20 September 2013

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

zzzz

Every communication after 25 October 2013 is BULLSHIT. Landau is ignoring his client interests and breaking the law.

zzzz

Delivered to Employer 20 September 2013

Presented to Solicitor Philip Simon Landau 10 October 2013

The Law of Norway

The Law of England

GR_02-03

GR_04-05

GR_06-07

GR_08-09

GR_10-11

GR_12-13

GR_14-15

GR_16-17

GR_18-19

GR_20-21

In the UK, employers must have a written grievance procedure, follow the Acas Code of Practice for fairness (prompt investigation, unbiased hearings, written decisions), and protect employees from retaliation for raising issues like discrimination or health & safety concerns, with failure to do so risking Employment Tribunal penalties. Key responsibilities include investigating promptly, holding fair hearings (allowing companions), communicating decisions in writing, and offering an appeal stage, all while preventing victimisation under laws like the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010.

In the UK, if a grievance involves whistleblowing, employers must handle it carefully under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA); they cannot dismiss or victimize a worker for making a “protected disclosure” (reporting wrongdoing in the public interest). The employer must follow proper procedures, address the disclosure as a serious concern (even if it’s also a personal grievance like bullying), and avoid detrimental actions (like bullying or demotion), or face automatic unfair dismissal claims and uncapped tribunal compensation. Failure to act can lead to vicarious liability for colleague actions and significant penalties, including uplifts for not following ACAS codes of practice.

If an employment solicitor recommends an NDA that illegally bars a whistleblower from reporting fraud or crimes to authorities, it can be considered a serious ethical breach, potentially unlawful, and could be seen as facilitating fraud or obstruction, but whether it’s technically “fraud” depends on intent and jurisdiction; it’s more accurately a violation of whistleblower laws and regulations like those from the SEC, which have penalized companies for such restrictive agreements, highlighting that such clauses are often unenforceable and legally risky for all parties.

Illegal non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are frequently used to retaliate against whistleblowers by intimidating them into silence, but federal agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and SEC, OSHA, and CFPB are actively cracking down, stating such NDAs undermine protections and can lead to penalties for employers, as they obstruct reporting of crimes like fraud, antitrust violations, and securities fraud. Federal laws and regulations deem NDAs unenforceable when they try to prevent reporting misconduct to government bodies, ensuring whistleblowers can exercise their rights to report illegal activity.

Norway’s Working Environment Act (WEA), specifically Chapter 2 A, provides a strong framework for whistleblower protection, including the right to report censurable conditions and a prohibition against retaliation. The law also includes provisions for confidentiality, though the specific handling of identity can be complex. Employees have the legal right to report “censurable conditions,” which include breaches of laws, ethical guidelines, or general ethical norms (e.g., danger to life or health, corruption, an unsatisfactory work environment, harassment). In some serious situations, employees have a duty to report. Confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements that attempt to prevent an employee from making legitimate disclosures, particularly those related to workplace misconduct or criminal offenses, are generally void and unenforceable under Norwegian law.

In the UK, whistleblower retaliation for reporting wrongdoing (like perverting the course of justice) is primarily addressed under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), making it illegal for employers to dismiss or detrimentally treat workers for blowing the whistle, with recourse through employment tribunals, though the system faces criticism for being employment-focused, leading some to seek US avenues. While PIDA protects against unfair treatment, the specific offense of “perverting the course of justice” involves actions like intimidating witnesses or obstructing investigations, which carries criminal penalties and can apply to those retaliating against whistleblowers, potentially leading to arrest and prosecution for those who threaten witnesses or evidence.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) in the UK makes confidentiality clauses, or “gagging clauses,” that try to stop employees from making legally protected whistleblowing disclosures void and unenforceable, protecting workers who report wrongdoing in the public interest, even within settlement agreements. While such clauses are legally ineffective for preventing whistleblowing, they can still create a chilling effect; employers must ensure agreements don’t deter disclosures, and employees should seek advice if they encounter them.

A whistleblower can only receive protection under the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) if they reasonably believe they are disclosing information in the public interest. This is also known as making a ‘qualifying disclosure’.

A whistleblower must reasonably believe that one or more of the following matters is either happening now, took place in the past, or is likely to happen in the future:

– a criminal offence

– the breach of a legal obligation

– a miscarriage of justice

– a danger to the health and safety of any individual

– damage to the environment

– deliberate concealment of information about any of the above.

Governed by the Law of England

Employer Grievance Procedure Requirement – Law of England

Employer Documented Grievance Procedures

Employment of Foreign Skilled Worker – Tier 2 Visa

“Gagging Clauses”