Constant Security Services Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant's claim against Constant Security Services Ltd was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with a previous tribunal order dated 13 November 2025 and had not actively pursued the claim. Despite being warned on 23 February 2026 and given an opportunity to respond, the claimant failed to provide any explanation or request a hearing.

The claim was struck out because the claimant failed to comply with an Order of the Tribunal dated 13 November 2025, had not actively pursued the claim, and failed to provide any response to the tribunal's warning letter or explanation as to why the claim should not be struck out.

• •non-compliance with tribunal order dated 13 November 2025
• •failure to actively pursue claim
• •failure to respond to strike-out warning

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr A Akerele Respondent: Constant Security Services Ltd JUDGMENT The claim is struck out. REASONS 1. The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 23 February 2026 warning them that the Tribunal was considering striking out the claim. This was because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, • that the claimant had not complied with the Order of the Tribunal dated 13 November 2025; • the claim had not been actively pursued; 2. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so. The claimant has not replied. 3. I am satisfied that the grounds for striking out the claim under Rule 38 apply, and that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3 to strike out the claim. This is because the claimant’s default has meant the hearing has been vacated and he has failed to provide any reasons why his claim should not be struck out. 4. The claim is therefore struck out. Approved by: Employment Judge Broughton 20 March 2026