Case 6026165/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Wispy v Europa Worldwide Group Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6026165/2025
- Decision date
- 9 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Perry Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Wispy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal decided to proceed in his absence after considering the claimant's postponement request, the Regional Employment Judge's earlier comments about the DSAR issue, the absence of supporting medical evidence, and the tribunal's view that the claims appeared entirely baseless.
The claimant sought 10 months' net salary, alleging that dismissal breached his contract and the respondent's procedures. The tribunal accepted the respondent's unchallenged evidence that the contract allowed termination before the end of the fixed term by payment in lieu of one week's notice, and that the disciplinary policy was expressly non-contractual.
The tribunal found that dismissal was not in breach of any contractual disciplinary policy because there was no contractual disciplinary policy, and that the claimant had been paid in lieu of notice in accordance with the contract. The breach of contract claim therefore failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant sought 10 months' net salary for alleged breach of contract arising from termination of employment. The tribunal found the claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- common law contractual construction
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.