Case 3305879/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R da Silva Mr G Elson Mr J Agate Mr W Harvey Mr R Blackledge v Bacerius Investments Ltd & Delesius Investments Ltd (together as Trustees of Sutton Place) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305879/2022
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R da Silva Mr G Elson Mr J Agate Mr W Harvey Mr R Blackledge
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge George at Reading Employment Tribunal on 21 March 2024 considered linked claims by five claimants against Bacerius Investments Ltd and Delesius Investments Ltd (together as Trustees of Sutton Place). This judgment relates specifically to case 3305879/2022, Mr W Harvey.
Mr Harvey did not attend the hearing despite having been given notice. He had not responded to a strike-out warning letter sent on 20 September 2023 and had taken no steps in the litigation beyond being included in a joint claim form originally presented by Mr Forman.
The Tribunal concluded that Mr Harvey was not actively pursuing his claim and struck it out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d). Other claimants in the linked group (Mr da Silva, Mr Elson and Mr Blackledge) succeeded in their claims at the same hearing; Mr Agate's claim was also struck out for non-pursuit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr W Harvey's claim struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued (heard with linked claims 3305876-3305879/2022 and 3313551/2022). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d)
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.