When an employer funds a settlement package, the product being purchased is finality — and finality is a manufactured thing: Irish law voids waivers outside genuine settlement, the informed-consent case law polices how agreements are made, and the template that skips the architecture converts your package into an instalment rather than a conclusion. This page is the employer’s chair, served with the same candour as every other page on this site.
Manufacturing Finality: the Architecture That Makes Waivers Stick
The elements, built deliberately: a genuine settlement of identified claims — the schedule drafted specifically, statutes named and claims described, neither missing what matters nor overreaching into the unenforceable (both failures invite the challenge finality exists to prevent); the independent-advice architecture — the advice warranty, the adviser identified, and the contribution clause that makes the required advice accessible, since an employee who couldn’t afford it is a poor foundation for a binding waiver; real consideration, itemised honestly against entitlements; the carve-outs handled consciously — accrued personal injury and pension addressed by choice, not swept by boilerplate; and covenants and confidentiality drafted to survive — narrow, tailored restraints hold where the twelve-month everything-everywhere clause falls, new covenants at exit are consideration questions to be paid for visibly, and confidentiality that would gag ordinary professional life gets read down at best. The philosophy throughout: ask for what you’d actually enforce, drafted to the width that survives — because informed consent isn’t a compliance tax on finality; it’s the manufacturing process for it. The anatomy page shows the full skeleton this practice drafts to.
Process, Speed — and Why Both-Chairs Experience Pays
Run the process as if a tribunal will read the chronology, because a failed settlement means one might: the exit conversation conducted inside the without-prejudice framework properly; no signature sought in the room where the news landed; a reasonable window for the required advice — the extension refused today is the “unconscionable pressure” submission tomorrow; the contribution handled cleanly; remote execution mechanics that don’t stall signings. The counterintuitive economics, observed weekly from both sides of this table: the generous process gets finality faster — well-advised employees sign good agreements quickly, while pressured employees generate exactly the disputes settlements exist to prevent. On any given exit this practice acts for one side only — independence is the point of the architecture — but the both-chairs experience is the drafting advantage: employer agreements built here are pre-hardened against the employee-side review they will certainly receive, because that review is what this practice conducts the rest of the week. Where the exit sits inside a redundancy programme, the firm’s practice at redundancysolicitors.ie carries the process side; where a departing employee has taken more than their memories, the urgent remedies run alongside the agreement.
An Exit to Paper - Properly?
Agreements drafted to survive the review they'll certainly receive, processes run to produce finality rather than litigation. Fees agreed in writing before work begins.
Call 01 5827148