Case 6010947/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Sarah Gibbons v Break — 2026
- Case reference
- 6010947/2025
- Decision date
- 14 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr A.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sarah Gibbons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought one complaint, described as wrongful dismissal as policy not followed. She said the respondent breached her contract by dismissing her without first following its disciplinary and dismissal procedure, particularly by not giving disciplinary warnings before dismissal. Her application to amend the claim to add further alleged breaches based on additional policies or procedures was refused after the tribunal applied the Selkent principles.
The tribunal found that the respondent's disciplinary and dismissal policy expressly stated that it did not form part of any employee's contract of employment and could be amended from time to time. Although it was accepted that the respondent did not follow that procedure and gave no warnings before dismissal, the tribunal concluded that the respondent was not contractually bound to follow the procedure. The breach of contract claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint was described as wrongful dismissal/breach of contract, but the claimant did not allege dismissal without notice. The claim was that the respondent breached contract by not following its disciplinary and dismissal procedure before dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Selkent principles
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.