Mr R Wispy v Europa Worldwide Group Ltd: 6026165/2025
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s claim for breach of contract fails and is dismissed.REASONS
[1]The Claimant did not attend today’s hearing. The clerk made reasonable efforts to contact him but to no avail.[2]On 30 December 2025 the Claimant applied to postpone the current hearing pending the outcome of a DSAR he had submitted. On 5 January 2026 REJ Khalil responded to the effect that a DSAR would not normally justify postponement of a hearing. In response the Claimant suggested, without providing any supporting medical evidence, that he was suffering with flu. In the circumstances of this case, in particular, given: REJ Khalil’s comments (with which I agree); the claims appear entirely baseless; and the lack of medical evidence, I decided to proceed with the hearing in the Claimant’s absence.[3]I had before me a witness statement from Ms Nicola Bush, HR Business Partner at the Respondent, and a bundle of 248 pages prepared by the Respondent. Ms Bush attended the hearing but, in the absence of any challenge from the Claimant, I accepted her evidence entirely.The issues
[4]The Claimant seeks payment of 10 month’s net salary due to the termination of his employment, which he says was in breach of contract. The Claimant says his dismissal was in breach of his contract with the Respondent and its own procedures.The Law
[5]The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider breach of contract claims under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.[6]The correct construction of a contract is a matter of common law. The basic principle is that interpretation is the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract.The Facts
[7]The Claimant started employment with the Respondent on 19 March 2025.[8]The Fixed Terms and Conditions of Employment signed by the Claimant and the Respondent included:a. A right for the Respondent to end employment before the fixed term of 12 months by paying in lieu of one week’s notice (when the Claimant had between one and three months’ service) (clause 15); andb. Reference to the disciplinary policies in the Respondent’s disciplinary policy applying but being expressly non contractual (clause 19c).[9]The Respondent’s disciplinary policy expressly states that it is not part of the contractual agreement between the parties and states it does not apply to staff with less than two years’ service.[10]There was a probation review meeting for the Claimant on 9 May 2025. Concerns regarding performance were raised with the Claimant.[11]There was a further probation review meeting for the Claimant on 23 May 2025. The Claimant was dismissed at the end of this meeting. The Claimant was told he would be paid in lieu of his one week’s notice.[12]A dismissal letter was sent to the Claimant on 27 May 2025. This repeated that the Claimant would be paid in lieu of one week’s notice.[13]On 30 May 2025 the Claimant was paid in lieu of notice together with outstanding accrued holiday and pay.Conclusions
[14]The Claimant’s dismissal was not in breach of any contractual disciplinary policy as there was no contractual disciplinary policy. The policy was explicitly non contractual.[15]The Claimant’s dismissal was not a wrongful dismissal (ie in breach of contract) as the Claimant was paid in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms of his contract.[16]It follows that the Claimant’s claim is misconceived, fails and is dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge T Perry 9 January 2026 Sent to Parties. 3 February 2026 Notes All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislationpractice-directions/