Case 1601467/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Owen v Gellifawr LLP — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601467/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Representation
- Venue
- Carmarthen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Owen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Miss Owen, and from Mr John for the respondent, and considered the documentary bundle. It amended the respondent's name to Gellifawr Limited. The judgment was given orally at the hearing, with the written record sent on 20 January 2020.
The claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s104 Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and was dismissed. The tribunal stated that this meant the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
The remaining claims for notice pay, holiday pay, compensation for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars, and compensation for failure to provide an itemised pay statement were also found not well founded and dismissed. No monetary award was made, and no separate remedy figures were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s104 Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for compensation for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for compensation for failure to provide an itemised pay statement dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s104 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.