Case 3313737/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Blacledge v Bacerius Investments Ltd & Delesius Investments Ltd (together as Trustees of Sutton Place) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313737/2022
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S George Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Blacledge
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr R Blacledge's claim against Bacerius Investments Ltd and Delesius Investments Ltd, acting together as trustees of Sutton Place. The reason given was that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because it was a duplicate of a claim on which judgment had already been given.
The reasons also recorded that the claimant had failed to make written representations, or had failed to make any sufficient written representations, explaining why the claim should not be struck out, and had not requested a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge S George on 12 August 2025. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim because it found no reasonable prospect of success, stating that it was a duplicate of a claim on which judgment had already been given. It also noted that the claimant had failed to make written representations, or sufficient written representations, as to why strike out should not occur, and had not requested a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.