The High Court ruled that the confidentiality clause was not a condition of the contract; This was not explicitly mentioned and confidentiality was not the duchy`s main reason for concluding the agreement. The judge commented that “parties often overestimate the harm that can be caused by a relatively minor breach of a confidentiality clause.” In reality, the duchy`s main objective was for Mr Steels to renounce the requirements of the agreement. Nevertheless, a staff member must ensure that they fully understand the extent of the restrictions imposed by a confidentiality clause before committing to entering into an agreement. There are several situations in which they wish to reserve the right to disclose details about the circumstances of their denunciation and an advisor experienced in the management of transaction agreements will be able to sketch them out and propose appropriate formulations to modify the agreement. In one widespread case, the strangulation clauses introduced into an out-of-court settlement on behalf of Harvey Weinstein required his former personal assistant: the government encourages the use of settlement agreements to settle workplace disputes. It recommends that workers and employers find an amicable solution where differences cannot be resolved in the internal dispute resolution procedure, in accordance with the ACAS Code of Conduct. An amicable dispute is much better than a dispute that puts pressure on the legal system. In addition to this clearer wording, any whistleblowing settlement agreement will contain a clear statement that nothing in the agreement can prevent the person from exaggerating the concerns and a certificate from independent legal counsel explaining the requirements and restrictions of the confidentiality clause. .

. .