Miss B Sepako v Big Fish Group Limited Decision at: Sheffield — 2023

Miss B Sepako brought a claim against Big Fish Group Limited arising from alleged under-paid wages during her employment as a Personal Adviser. After a preliminary hearing, the tribunal required her to explain why the claim should not be struck out and, if she wished to continue, to set out in detail the basis of the alleged unauthorised deductions, including the periods, hours, rates and calculations relied on.

The claimant did not provide the requested particulars. Instead, she said she did not wish to represent herself, that she could not afford a solicitor, and asked for the case to be postponed until April 2024 so that she could be represented. The respondent opposed that request and said it still did not know the particulars of the claim or what evidence might need to be preserved or obtained from a third-party end user.

Employment Judge James applied Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and referred to the Birkett v James principles, together with Evans' Executors v Metropolitan Police Authority, Rolls Royce plc v Riddle, and Balls v Downham Market High School & College. The tribunal held that the claimant's conduct was disrespectful to the tribunal, that her refusal to progress the case without legal representation was unreasonable, and that the respondent was seriously prejudiced because the particulars of the claim remained unclear more than six months after presentation.

The tribunal also found a clear danger that a fair trial was no longer possible and said that lesser alternatives, including a deposit order or an unless order, were not appropriate in the circumstances. The claim was therefore struck out because it was not being actively pursued. No merits finding or monetary award was made.