Claimant v Ocean Fish (Retail) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Preliminary hearing to determine strike out and deposit order applications only. Factual issue of dismissal date disputed. One allegation (failure to pay for time off for midwife appointments) subject to deposit order for little reasonable prospect of success based on clocking records and matching payslips.
Claim includes harassment allegations from September 2024 which are in time. One allegation (failure to pay for midwife appointments) subject to deposit order. Other harassment allegations (shouting by Billy Dickson and Lucy Mellum in September 2024) to proceed to full hearing.
Preliminary hearing only. Tribunal refused to strike out respondent's defence or make deposit order on time limits. Factual dispute over whether claimant resigned or was dismissed, and when. Evidence shows claimant's father-in-law may have been treated similarly, which could undermine discriminatory motivation.
No determination made at preliminary hearing. Time limit issue depends on disputed dismissal date. No deposit order made.
Two allegations: (1) deductions for lunch breaks exceeding 30 minutes when only 30 minutes taken - to proceed; (2) failure to pay for time off for midwife appointments on 12, 14 and 28 June 2024 - subject to deposit order as clocking records and payslips appear conclusive that claimant was either not working or was paid for full day.
Facts
Pregnant claimant worked as Operative/Packer from February 2024. Dispute over whether she resigned or was dismissed in July or September 2024. Claims include pregnancy discrimination, harassment (including incidents with managers Billy Dickson and Lucy Mellum shouting at her about her pregnancy), automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages (relating to lunch breaks and allegedly unpaid time off for midwife appointments on 12, 14 and 28 June 2024). Claimant is illiterate and unable to access internet, represented by former colleague as lay representative. Early conciliation commenced 21 October 2024, claim filed 27 October 2024.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed claimant's application to strike out respondent's defence, finding factual disputes required full hearing. Tribunal also dismissed most of respondent's deposit order application, finding insufficient basis to conclude little reasonable prospect of success on time limits given disputed dismissal date and claimant's circumstances. However, tribunal made deposit order of £3 (£1 per allegation under three heads of claim) regarding failure to pay for midwife appointments, finding clocking records and payslips appeared conclusive that claimant was either not working or was paid.
Practical note
Even where there are documentary inconsistencies, strike out is inappropriate where core facts are disputed and require witness evidence, particularly in discrimination cases involving vulnerable claimants with literacy issues and lay representation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016447/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Operative/Packer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep