Case 2601478/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Tracey Devlin v Northstar One Group Limited Record of an Attended Hearing at the Employment Tribunal — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601478/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Tracey Devlin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hutchinson, sitting alone at Nottingham on 16 January 2024, heard the claim in the Claimant's presence; the Respondent did not appear. The Judge found in the Claimant's favour on each head of claim brought against Northstar One Group Limited.
The tribunal held that the Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages (£341.55), that the Claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice with damages of £4,707.72, that the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £12,068.10, and that the Respondent had failed to pay her holiday entitlement of £657.13. The total sum the Respondent was ordered to pay was £17,774.50.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided in this record. The judgment was signed on 19 January 2024 and sent to the parties on 22 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £342 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded. | Upheld | — | £4,708 |
| Redundancy | Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £12,068 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £657 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,775
- 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.