Case 1602418/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Townsend-Ryan v Cardiff City Transport Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1602418/2024
- Decision date
- 15 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Macdonald Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Townsend-Ryan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Cardiff, sitting before Employment Judge E Macdonald on 7 and 8 July 2025, found that the claimant Mr M Townsend-Ryan's complaint of unfair dismissal against Cardiff City Transport Services Limited was well-founded, and a declaration was made to that effect.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £7,332.40 in total. This comprised a basic award of £5,876, an award of £500 for loss of statutory rights, and an uplift of £956.40 representing 15% of those sums, applied for unreasonable failure to comply with a relevant provision of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures pursuant to section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and written reasons will only be provided if requested. The judgment was approved on 8 July 2025 and sent to the parties on 15 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Award comprises basic award of £5,876, loss of statutory rights of £500, and a 15% ACAS uplift of £956.40 under s.207A TULR(C)A 1992. | Upheld | — | £7,332 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,332
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,876
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.