The court will consider the decision as a closing statement in the Crogga pay dispute

Founding member Diccen Sargent claims he suffered an illegal pay deduction

Closing arguments have been made in the tribunal between Crogga and one of its founding members and a verdict will now be considered.

Diccen Sargentwho left his position as director and chief executive officer in March 2022, claims unlawful deductions from his salary.

WHAT IS THE DISPUTE ABOUT?

In Autumn 2020, various executives at the energy firm had their salaries deferred while the company was in ‘acute financial distress’, prompting calls for shareholders to receive £800,000 worth of ‘crisis finance’.

Mr. Sargent agreed to defer his fee with the understanding that he would be refunded with a 15 percent increase.

The dispute between Crogga and the former CEO does not arise over the amount of payment due, but over the timeline in which it is expected to be paid.

Crogga argues that the deferred salary will not be paid until funds are raised for the 3D seismic survey.

But Mr Sargent claims he was promised payment “in the next round of funding”, the description of which appears to have caused disagreement.

EQ1 and EQ1S are described as funding plans to complete the first two phases of the project, said to be £12.75 million.

It has been suggested that these two plans are the meaning of the ‘next round of funding’ by Crogga, but Mr Sargent says this is not the case.

WHAT HAPPENED TODAY?

Closing statements were made today (November 28) by both the plaintiff (Diccen Sargent) and the defendant (Crogga).

Mr Sargent went on to claim that the “next round of funding” was about any funding increase by Crogga and said counter-arguments that the term was “just bad drafting” were a “huge leap forward”.

“If the funding round was EQ1 or EQ1S, why wasn’t it made clear that the deferral of salaries was until this was completed?

“The funding round, completed in June 2022, mandates immediate payment of (deferred wages),” Christopher Webb, Mr. Sargent’s legal representative, said at the hearing.

“We must also question why Crogga is trying to close itself down after receiving £1 million worth of funding.”

The plaintiff is asking the court for the full deferred salary, in addition to the 15 percent increase, unused vacation pay and legal costs.

Crogga’s legal representative, Keira Gore, closed the conversation by arguing that Mr Sargent had a great deal of control over the company’s operations and was “enforcing a group structure that he is now trying to undermine”.

The energy firm added in its closing statement: “The nature of the next round of funding was very clear.

“An equity raise of approximately £10 million was required to complete Phase B (3D seismic survey) of the licence.

“This was discussed and formally decided at the board meeting in October 2020.

“The duty to pay Mr. Sargent has not yet been clarified.

“There is no dispute that he is owed deferred wages, but the conditions for him to be paid have not been met.

“Unfortunately Crogga was never in a strong enough position to complete Stage B and had a significant challenge.”

Although the figures were not in dispute, the claimant’s attempt to collect unused holiday pay was rejected by Crogga as it stated that there were no records to show which holiday had been taken.

“The failure to record the holiday is a failure on his (Mr Sargent) part. “It is his duty to prove that it was an extraordinary holiday,” the legal representative added.

If the court ruled in Mr Sargent’s favour, Crogga requested only the deferred salary, not the 15 per cent increase or the payment of holiday pay or expenses.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Presiding Judge Felicity Kniveton said no decision had been made yet, adding that “there is a lot to look at and consider”.

The hearing ended after the president thanked both sides for the information they provided and their behavior during the three-day hearing.

It will be decided and decided in due time.