He agreed the money, but not the release, so there was no deal

Yun Zhong Xie, a fabricator at a tapware company, was summarily dismissed in February 2023. The employer said it was for serious misconduct; he said the dismissal was unfair. He speaks limited English and, after his advocate stopped acting, ran his own case with a Mandarin interpreter.

At a conciliation with a Commissioner in May 2023, Mr Xie offered to settle for a sum of money. Nothing was said about any other terms. The Commissioner's chambers then sent both sides the Commission's standard terms of settlement with his figure in them, and his offer was to stay open for a week.

Mr Xie did not sign. Five days later he emailed the chambers asking why the release clauses were there. As he later explained, he had a related workers' compensation claim and did not want to give up any injury claim. He did not copy in the employer. On the last day the offer was open, the employer, unaware of his concerns, accepted the deed. It later asked the Commission to strike out his claim because the matter had settled.

The Commission refused. Mr Xie had agreed the amount, but not the release terms, which he first saw in the Commission's draft. 'Release terms are fundamental terms of a settlement contract', the Deputy President said: they set out what rights are given up in return for the money. Without agreement on them there was no meeting of minds. 'This is not a case of buyer's remorse.'

The Commission did say Mr Xie should have copied the employer in, and accepted the employer had acted in good faith. It even observed that the deed appeared to protect his injury claims. But none of that turned the deed into a contract he had not agreed to. His unfair dismissal claim was sent on to a hearing.