Supreme Guarding Services Ltd

Case Summary

Mr Akanbi brought claims for unfair dismissal (constructive), direct race discrimination, victimisation, unlawful wage deductions, breach of contract regarding notice pay, and holiday pay against Supreme Guarding Services Limited. The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the claimant had insufficient continuous service to claim unfair dismissal and that the remaining complaints were not well-founded.

The tribunal found the claimant lacked sufficient continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and determined that all remaining claims (constructive dismissal, direct race discrimination, victimisation, unlawful wage deductions, breach of contract regarding notice pay, and holiday pay) were not well-founded.

• •Continuous service eligibility for unfair dismissal claim
• •Constructive dismissal
• •Direct race discrimination
• •Victimisation
• •Unauthorised deductions from wages
• •Notice pay (breach of contract)
• •Holiday pay

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr S Akanbi Respondent: Supreme Guarding Services Limited Heard at: London East Hearing Centre (by CVP) On: 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 14 & 15 April 2026 Before: Employment Judge Howden-Evans Members: Mr J Webb Ms P Alford Representation: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr Warnes (Solicitor) JUDGMENT The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Unfair Dismissal 1. The Claimant had insufficient continuous service to be eligible to present a complaint of unfair dismissal. The constructive unfair dismissal complaint is not well-founded and is dismissed. Direct race discrimination 2. The complaint of direct race discrimination is not well-founded and is dismissed. 2 Victimisation 3. The complaint of victimisation is not well-founded and is dismissed. Wages 4. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is not well-founded and is dismissed. Notice Pay 5. The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is not well-founded and is dismissed. Holiday Pay 6. The complaint in respect of holiday pay is not well-founded and is dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Howden-Evans 16 th April 2026 Note Summary reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written summary reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments (apart from judgments under rule 51) and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.