The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton
Case Summary
The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed as being out of time.
Why this outcome?
Out of timeThe tribunal found that the claimant's claims were presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been brought within the time limit. For the discrimination claims, the tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.
Key Issues
- •time limits
- •reasonably practicable
- •just and equitable
Claim Types
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed as being out of time.
The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed as being out of time.
In Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth BC [2002] ICR 713, a race discrimination case, the Court of Appeal held that delay pending the resolution of internal grievance procedures was not a sufficient ground for allowing an application to be heard outside the statutory time limits.
Decision Text
Case No: 6006807/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss Lauren Campbell Respondent: The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton Heard at: Croydon by CVP On: 17 November 2025 Before: Employment Judge Liz Ord Representation: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr Cyril Adjei (counsel) JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented within the time limit. Therefore, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint and it is dismissed. 2. The claimant’s complaints of disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments were presented out of time and it is not just and equitable to extend time. Therefore, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints and they are dismissed. REASONS 1. Oral judgment was given to the parties at the hearing and, upon the claimant’s request for written reasons, these reasons are provided. Evidence 2. The tribunal had before it a documents bundle of 81 pages, the claimant’s late documents of 26 pages, a five-page witness statement from the claimant and a letter dated 7 October 2025 from the respondent. 3. The claimant chose not to give oral evidence and to only rely on submissions and her written statement. Case No: 6006807/2024 Law Statutory provisions 4. Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) - Complaints to [employment tribunal] (1) A complaint may be presented to an [employment tribunal] against an employer by any person that he was unfairly dismissed by the employer. (2)– [subject to the following provisions of this section], an [employment tribunal] shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal- (a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with ...
Employer
Case Details
- Case Number
- 6006807/2024
- Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal
- Level
- First instance
- Decision Date
- 17/11/2025
- Published
- 10/04/2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord