Case 2203576/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Miss MM Mariotti v Hippodrome Casino Limited — 2022

Case reference: 2203576/2021
Decision date: 22 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Isaacson
Venue: Central London

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss MM Mariotti

Respondent

Hippodrome Casino Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Miss MM Mariotti's wrongful dismissal claim was presented out of time. Employment Judge Isaacson held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present that claim in time, and that she presented it within a reasonable period after she became aware of the Tribunal's three months' time limit. The judgment records only that preliminary time-limit issue; it does not decide the merits of the wrongful dismissal claim.

The claimant's discrimination claims were also presented out of time, but the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time. The judgment does not determine liability on the discrimination allegations. It instead allows those claims to proceed notwithstanding the time point.

The tribunal said it did not consider at this stage whether events in 2019 could be treated as part of a continuing act with the claimant's dismissal. That issue was expressly left to be dealt with when the tribunal had the benefit of all the evidence. The claimant also confirmed that she was not bringing a claim of disability discrimination.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time, but that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time and that she presented it within a reasonable period after becoming aware of the Tribunal's three months' time limit. The merits were not determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—
Age discrimination	The judgment records that the claimant's discrimination claims were presented out of time and that it was just and equitable to extend time. The judgment text refers to discrimination claims generally; the age-discrimination classification is taken from the case listing context supplied with the case. The merits were not determined in this judgment.	Other	Age	—
Race discrimination	The judgment records that the claimant's discrimination claims were presented out of time and that it was just and equitable to extend time. The judgment text refers to discrimination claims generally; the race-discrimination classification is taken from the case listing context supplied with the case. The merits were not determined in this judgment.	Other	Race	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.