Case 2301993/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs M Rucci v National Maritime Museum — 2024

Case reference: 2301993/2022
Decision date: 11 March 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Wright Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs M Rucci

Respondent

National Maritime Museum

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing held in London South (Croydon) via CVP on 14 February 2024, Employment Judge Wright considered time-limit issues only. The tribunal held that the claims of unlawful discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010, discrimination for performing trade union duties, and detriments for making protected disclosures were presented out of time.

The tribunal was not persuaded to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for those claims. The judgment also records that the claim of constructive unfair dismissal was presented within the primary time limit and therefore proceeds. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment refers to unlawful discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010, but the extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic(s). The tribunal held these claims were presented out of time and declined to extend the time limit.	Other	—	—
Trade union	Claim for discrimination for performing trade union duties. The tribunal held it was presented out of time and declined to extend the time limit.	Other	—	—
Whistleblowing	Claim for detriment for making protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal held it was presented out of time and declined to extend the time limit.	Other	—	—
Constructive dismissal	Constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found it was presented within the primary time limit and that the claim proceeds.	Other	—	—

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.