Case 2601812/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Davis v Cerealto UK Limited Mr L Milner Ms J Rixon Mr G Stevens Mr C Smith Mr I Knowles Mr M Paczensy — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601812/2022
- Decision date
- 14 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Tribunal
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Dean, Tribunal Member Blomefield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Davis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Nottingham via CVP on 14 December 2022, before Employment Judge Fredericks with Tribunal Member Dean and Tribunal Member Blomefield, the tribunal dealt with claims brought by Mr R Davis and others against Cerealto UK Limited and named individuals. The first set of claims, for unlawful deduction from wages, was struck out because the tribunal held that those claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal also considered the remaining claims for unlawful inducement under section 145B TULRCA 1992. Those claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimants to bring the claims in time, but they did not do so.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons would be provided unless requested. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out because the tribunal found the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Trade union | Claims under s.145B TULRCA 1992 were dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was reasonably practicable for the claimants to have brought them in time, but they did not do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.145B TULRCA 1992
- reasonably practicable test
- no reasonable prospect of success
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.