Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton

Case Summary

The claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal, including a constructive dismissal claim, was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because she did not have two years' continuous service at the time of dismissal and no exceptions to the qualifying period applied. The tribunal found the claimant lacked standing to bring an unfair dismissal complaint but noted her disability discrimination claims remained unaffected and she may pursue a constructive dismissal claim under the Equality Act 2010.

The claim was struck out because the claimant did not meet the qualifying period of two years' continuous service required by section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, and no exceptions to that qualifying period applied, meaning she lacked standing to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal (including constructive unfair dismissal).

• •Whether claimant had qualifying period of two years' continuous service for unfair dismissal claim
• •Whether constructive dismissal claim was viable without meeting qualifying period requirement
• •Whether exceptions to qualifying period applied

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss C Morgan-Blake Respondent: Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton JUDGMENT The complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. REASONS 1. The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 30 March 2026 warning her that the Tribunal was considering striking out the complaint of unfair dismissal. This was because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success as the claimant did not have two years’ continuous service at the time of her dismissal nor did any of the exceptions to that requirement appear to apply. 2. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant replied on 6 April 2026 explaining that the basis of her complaint was “constructive dismissal arising from the employer’s conduct”. Specifically, she says she “resigned because the employer’s behaviour, actions and failures created a working environment that breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence”. 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, notwithstanding the explanation that has been provided by the claimant, she does not have standing to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal (including constructive unfair dismissal) because she does not meet the qualifying period of employment in section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, nor do any of the exceptions to that qualifying period apply. 4. The complaint of unfair dismissal is therefore struck out. The claimant’s other complaints of disability discrimination are not affected by this judgment and (subject to time limit issues, and without expressing a view as to whether this is within the scope of the claim as already pleaded) the claimant m…