Case 3219991/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Coong Sang Chau (2) Mr Yuan Jie Lin (3) Ms Yu Lightbown v Lotus Afloat Ltd and 3 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 3219991/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
Parties
5 namedClaimant
(1) Mr Coong Sang Chau (2) Mr Yuan Jie Lin (3) Ms Yu Lightbown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was conducted by Employment Judge Jones on 8 March 2021. The judgment records that the claimants withdrew their complaints against the third and fourth respondents, and those claims were dismissed. The first and second respondents did not defend the proceedings.
As against the first and second respondents, the tribunal found that the claimants were unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed. The judgment does not set out a fuller liability analysis in the extracted text, but it records those findings plainly and does not attribute any defended case to the first or second respondents.
Remedy was not determined at this stage. The tribunal directed that the remedy due for the successful claims would be decided at a later remedy hearing, and that the remedy hearing would also determine outstanding holiday pay and arrears of pay. The claimants were directed to send revised schedules of loss by 29 March 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimants were unfairly dismissed. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing, so no sum was allocated in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimants were wrongfully dismissed. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing, so no sum was allocated in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.