Case 3220795/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Henry Poon v Lotus Afloat Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3220795/2020
- Decision date
- 21 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Henry Poon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Henry Poon was unfairly dismissed on 1 October 2020. It also found that his dismissal was in breach of contract because he was not given any notice or paid any notice pay. In addition, the respondent had failed to pay for annual leave accrued but untaken at the time of dismissal.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,250, calculated by reference to 6 years' employment and a weekly pay figure of £250. It awarded £1,500 for notice pay, being 6 weeks at £250 per week, and £750 under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for 3 weeks' untaken leave. The total sum ordered was £4,500.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 and awarded a basic award only. | Upheld | — | £2,250 |
| 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 award was notice pay under section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay annual leave accrued but untaken at dismissal and awarded payment in lieu of 3 weeks' leave under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £750 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,500
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,250
- 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.