Case 2402501/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Megan North v Medrescue 24 Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402501/2023
- Decision date
- 9 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Megan North
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester by telephone on 26 May 2023 before Employment Judge Cline sitting alone. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
Under Rule 21, the tribunal found that the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £2,268 gross within 14 days. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £630 gross within 14 days.
The tribunal dismissed as not well-founded the claimant's claims for excess of £50, £500 for loans, and 'financial stress'. A separate interest notice stated that no interest would be payable if the sums were paid within 14 days of the written record being sent, and otherwise interest would run from 10 June 2023 at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim. No award was made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages claim was well-founded and succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay £2,268 gross within 14 days. | Upheld | — | £2,268 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £630 gross within 14 days. | Upheld | — | £630 |
| Other | The claims for excess of £50, £500 for loans, and 'financial stress' were found not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,898
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.