Case 2402120/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Melissa Redgrave v A Star Care at Home Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402120/2023
- Decision date
- 8 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Melissa Redgrave
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 17, 18 and 19 March 2025 before Employment Judge Cline sitting alone. The claimant, Melissa Redgrave, represented herself and the respondent, A Star Care at Home Limited, was represented by Mr Charles Hancock, consultant.
By consent, the claimant’s claim for outstanding holiday pay was found well-founded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the total gross sum of £1,386 by 4pm on 2 April 2025. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any applicable income tax or National Insurance.
The claimant’s claim for discrimination by association on the grounds of disability was dismissed as not well-founded. The claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was also dismissed as not well-founded. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Succeeded by consent; the tribunal ordered payment of the total gross sum of £1,386 by 4pm on 2 April 2025. | Upheld | — | £1,386 |
| Disability discrimination | Described in the judgment as discrimination by association on the grounds of disability; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,386
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.