Case 3220754/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Zhao Sheng Wang v Lotus Afloat Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3220754/2020
- Decision date
- 21 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Zhao Sheng Wang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 on the papers, and Employment Judge Jones recorded that the claimant, Mr Zhao Sheng Wang, was unfairly dismissed on 1 October 2020. The tribunal also found that Lotus Afloat Limited dismissed him in breach of contract because he was not given any notice or notice pay.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal awarded a basic award only. It calculated that award on the basis of 7 years' employment, with all years over the age of 41, giving 10.5 weeks' wages at £330 per week and a basic award of £3,465.00.
For the breach of contract claim, the tribunal awarded notice pay under section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Using £330 as the weekly pay and 7 weeks' notice pay, the tribunal awarded £2,310.00. The total sum payable to the claimant was £5,775.00, and the hearing listed for 12 July 2021 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 1 October 2020. The remedy recorded for this successful claim was a basic award of £3,465.00, calculated by reference to 7 years' employment and 10.5 weeks' wages at £330 per week. | Upheld | — | £3,465 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract because he was not given any notice or paid notice pay. The remedy recorded for this claim was £2,310.00 for 7 weeks' notice pay at £330 per week, under section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,310 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,775
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,465
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.