Case 6010083/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Geriant Wyn Jones v Towyn Development Co Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010083/2024
- Decision date
- 6 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Hughes Representation
- Venue
- Aberystwyth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Geriant Wyn Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe parties agreed by consent that the claimant was entitled to payment for 8 days of holiday not taken at the point of termination. The daily rate was £69.26, producing a gross award of £554.08. The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that sum.
The parties also agreed by consent that the claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' statutory notice. As 4 weeks had already been paid, the outstanding amount was 8 weeks at £484.80 per week, making £3,878.40 gross. The judgment again records that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that sum.
The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and was dismissed. No separate tribunal award was made for that claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | By consent, the claimant was entitled to be paid for 8 days of untaken holiday at £69.26 per day, gross. | Settled | — | £554 |
| Wrongful dismissal | By consent, the claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' statutory notice; 4 weeks had already been paid, so 8 weeks remained payable at £484.80 per week, gross. | Settled | — | £3,878 |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,432
- 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.