Case 2403252/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Indigo v Eric Chiong 2.H Leisure Group Limited 3.Vivicolor Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2403252/2024
- Decision date
- 15 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Indigo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a preliminary hearing to determine who had engaged the claimant, the claimant's employment or worker status, and whether he had sufficient continuous service to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant did not attend and had not provided documents or a witness statement as ordered.
The Tribunal attempted to contact the claimant by telephone and email and considered the available information about his absence. No reason was given for non-attendance. Taking account of the claimant's previous non-attendance, non-compliance with orders, and the respondents' attendance and preparation, the Tribunal dismissed all claims under rule 47 Tribunal Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed under rule 47 Tribunal Rules 2024 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing and had not complied with case management orders. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under rule 47 Tribunal Rules 2024 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing and had not complied with case management orders. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under rule 47 Tribunal Rules 2024 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing and had not complied with case management orders. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed under rule 47 Tribunal Rules 2024 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing and had not complied with case management orders. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 Tribunal Rules 2024
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.