Case 6006257/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Lok Mei Yiu v Lucas Wong (also known as Rex Leo Kaiser) and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006257/2025
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Knight Representation
- Venue
- London East Hearing Centre
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Lok Mei Yiu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against the First Respondent, Lucas Wong, was well-founded and succeeded. The First Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant GBP 8,800.
The complaints against the Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents were dismissed. The judgment does not set out a separate remedy breakdown, legal test, or lay panel members.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against the First Respondent, Lucas Wong, was well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £8,800 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaints against the Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,800
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.