Ms Sherine Thompson v The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton — 2025

The hearing was an application for interim relief under section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996. Miss Thompson said her dismissal was because of earlier protected disclosures about matters including a conflict of interest involving Roberta Evans and the use of volunteers instead of paid sessional workers. The judge noted that the respondent had admitted that the 12 September 2019 and 17 March 2020 disclosures were protected disclosures, while the other two alleged disclosures had not been found to be protected in the earlier consolidated litigation. The judge also recorded that the trade union basis could not be relied on because there was no supporting certificate from an authorised union official.

The tribunal directed itself to the interim relief test in sections 128 and 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It referred to Taplin v C, Shippam Limited and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz when explaining that the claimant needed a "pretty good chance" of success, and to Al Qasimi v Robinson when describing the need for a summary, impressionistic assessment on the material available without hearing oral evidence. The judge also noted that the earlier tribunal had dismissed the claimant's previous claims save for one terms-and-conditions point, with no compensation awarded.

On the material before it, the tribunal accepted the council's explanation that the dismissal decision followed a breakdown in trust and confidence after the earlier litigation and the parties' dealings in 2024 and 2025. The judge referred to the 11 July 2024 letter from Ms Mildred Phillips, the 24 September 2025 meeting, and the 26 September 2025 outcome letter recording that the relationship was irretrievably damaged. The judge concluded that the material did not show a likely case that the dismissal was caused by the earlier protected disclosures, and the application for interim relief was refused.