Case 3200405/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Okiche v Double Check Security Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200405/2024
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Okiche
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant's claims should be struck out for failure to comply with tribunal orders or because they had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the claimant had not provided documents by the ordered date, had not been in contact with the respondent or tribunal since 30 August 2024, and did not attend the preliminary hearing on 17 January 2025.
The tribunal did not accept the claimant's explanation that his emotional or psychological state prevented attendance, noting that no supporting evidence had been provided and that no postponement application or prior explanation had been made. It found the claimant's failures intentional and concluded that the claims should be struck out under Rule 38.
The respondent also applied for costs arising from the claimant's non-attendance at the 17 January 2025 hearing. The tribunal found the non-attendance and failure to notify the tribunal and respondent unreasonable and ordered the claimant to pay the respondent's costs of £1,008.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claimant's claims globally under Rule 38(1)(d). The specific claim type is taken from the case listing context rather than detailed merits analysis in the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claimant's claims globally under Rule 38(1)(d). The specific claim type is taken from the case listing context rather than detailed merits analysis in the judgment. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment struck out the claimant's claims globally under Rule 38(1)(d). The specific claim type is taken from the case listing context rather than detailed merits analysis in the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claimant's claims globally under Rule 38(1)(d). The specific claim type is taken from the case listing context rather than detailed merits analysis in the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,008
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 38(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 38(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Evans and anor v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 1993 ICR 151
- Birkett v James 1978 AC 297
- Rule 74 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.