Summary dismissal meaning

ARCHIVED: This archived Checklist sets out a high-level summary of the issues an employer should consider before moving to dismiss an employee for misconduct, and signposts further materials. For broader guidance on handling conduct, see Practice Notes: Managing conduct and Dismissing fairly for conduct reasons. Investigation and procedure Have all internal disciplinary procedures been followed? See Practice Notes: How to conduct a disciplinary investigation and How to conduct a disciplinary hearing If there are no internal procedures, have the requirements of the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (Acas Code) been followed? For details, see Practice Notes: Dismissing fairly for conduct reasons and Acas disciplinary and grievance code-procedural requirements. See also Practice Note: General requirements for discipline and grievance procedures As a minimum, ensure that: interviews with relevant witnesses and the employee have been carried out to establish the facts surrounding the complaint the employee has had the opportunity to state their case, and...

In this issue: Horizon scanning Recruitment Public sector Pay Tax Protected characteristics Equality of terms (equal pay) Whistleblowing Employee duties and restrictions on competition Unfair dismissal Employment Tribunals Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® LexTalk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Horizon scanning Government U-turns on day-one unfair dismissal rights and announces compensation cap ‘will be lifted’ On 27 November 2025, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) confirmed that, following a round of ‘constructive conversations’ with trade unions and business representatives, the discussions settled on a ‘workable package’: shortening the unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months, while preserving existing day-one protection against discrimination and for automatically unfair reasons for dismissal. To reinforce these safeguards, the government further pledged that any alteration to the unfair dismissal qualifying period will only be possible through primary legislation,...

In this issue: New technologies Internet Media Advertising, marketing and sponsorship LexTalk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information New technologies Getty Images drops Stability AI copyright infringement claims from UK trial MLex reports that on 25 June 2025 Getty Images abandoned its direct copyright infringement claims against image generator Stability AI during the first day of closing submissions in a landmark three‑week High Court hearing in London. It is still pursuing allegations of trade mark infringement, passing off, secondary copyright infringement and issues around licensing, yet the move is a setback for the UK’s creative sector, which had sought clear precedent to provide broad copyright protection in the UK against AI models’ web scraping. See: Getty Images drops Stability AI copyright infringement claims from UK trial. IAB Tech Lab proposes framework for AI content usage compensation...

Lorenz v Caruana and others [2025] EWCA Civ 606 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling underscores that claims premised on obligations said to arise from spoken discussions will seldom be apt for summary judgment. Here, the supposed duty took the form of a secret trust; nonetheless, the reasoning equally touches claims of purported oral contracts more broadly. It serves as a prompt to advisers that, where a case turns mainly on witness accounts, save in exceptional instances the court will be unable to resolve factual disputes ahead of trial. A bid for summary judgment is therefore unlikely to prosper unless the material refuting the existence of any oral bargain is compelling in the extreme, or the asserted obligation conflicts with a settled legal principle, on both the facts and the law advanced. What was the background?...

Practice Note This Practice Note sets out the full procedural guidance for court applications to renew or end a business tenancy, covers interim rent applications, and addresses Professional Arbitration on Court Terms (PACT)...

This Practice Note addresses only arbitrations conducted under the CIETAC Arbitration Rules 2024 (CIETAC Rules). In general, these govern cases accepted by CIETAC on or after 1 January 2024, or where the parties have expressly chosen the 2024 Rules (CIETAC, art 88). The 2015 rules continue to apply to arbitrations accepted by CIETAC between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2023. The Note concerns international or foreign-related disputes, as well as matters connected to Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR, or the Taiwan region (CIETAC, art 3.2). Separate provisions exist for summary arbitration—see Practice Note: CIETAC (2024)—summary procedure (and early dismissal)—and for domestic arbitration; neither is covered here. There are also distinct provisions for cases administered by the CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Centre (CIETAC, art 76), which likewise fall outside the scope of this Note. Under the CIETAC Rules, proceedings begin when the claimant lodges a Request for Arbitration (the Request)—see Practice Note: CIETAC (2024)—starting an arbitration. Provided the formal requirements are met, CIETAC will accept the Request and...

This Practice Note is confined to arbitrations conducted under the CIETAC Arbitration Rules 2024 (the CIETAC Rules). Those Rules govern cases accepted by CIETAC on or after 1 January 2024, or where the parties have expressly chosen to use the CIETAC Arbitration Rules 2024 (CIETAC, art 88). The 2015 rules continue to apply to matters accepted by CIETAC from 1 January 2015 up to 31 December 2023. This Practice Note addresses international or foreign-related disputes, and those linked to Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR, or the Taiwan region (CIETAC, art 3). CIETAC provides distinct rules for summary arbitration (see Practice Note: CIETAC (2024)—summary procedure (and early dismissal)) and for domestic arbitration; these fall outside the scope of this Practice Note. Arbitrations administered by the CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Centre are likewise governed by separate provisions (CIETAC, art 73) and are not addressed here. As with all arbitral proceedings, parties under the CIETAC Rules 2024 carry the burden of proving the facts underpinning their claims, defences, or counterclaims (CIETAC, art 41.1)....

Claim No. [ enter claim number ]...

A: General information Matter reference Client name Date the cause of action arose Nature of claim, e.g. unfair dismissal, discrimination Brief summary of claim Is this claim part of a group of comparable claims? B: The opponent/third party Can the opponent/third party be identified? Yes/No Opponent/third party’s name Nature of entity (e.g. partnership, PLC, company, individual) Do we have a current address for the opponent/third party? Yes/No/Not known Does the opponent/third party carry insurance to meet the damages sought by our client? Yes/No/Not known Does the opponent/third party have resources to satisfy the damages our client seeks?...

[ Insert name and address of client ] Private and confidential Dear [ insert name ] [ Insert name ] Employment tribunal claim Outcome of claim I can confirm receipt of the tribunal’s judgment together with its written reasons. Regrettably, the tribunal has determined the case against [ you OR the respondent ] on this occasion, [ insert brief summary of the tribunal’s findings, eg and has upheld the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim ]. I appreciate this will not be welcome news and, accordingly, I set out your options below. Next steps You have three options available to you at this stage. You may either: accept the tribunal’s decision [ and proceed to address remedy ]; apply to the tribunal for a reconsideration of its judgment; or appeal the judgment to the employment appeal tribunal (EAT)...

Unfair dismissal—conduct and procedure Where an employee pursues an unfair dismissal claim, the onus lies with the employer to demonstrate a fair reason for ending employment. Conduct is one of the potentially fair grounds, but a fair process must also be observed. Ultimately, it needs to be established that dismissal is an appropriate and fair sanction. The Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures imposes duties on both employers and employees to follow its provisions, with possible sanctions for non-compliance. It describes the standard of reasonable behaviour expected in most situations. For further guidance, see the following Practice Notes: Dismissing fairly for conduct reasons Reason for dismissal—conduct Reason for dismissal—general, in particular section: Potentially fair reasons Acas disciplinary and grievance code—procedural requirements Under the Acas Code of Practice, certain actions—labelled gross misconduct—are so serious in themselves, or carry such serious consequences, that they may justify dismissal without notice even for a first offence. However, a fair disciplinary...

From 28 September 2020, where a self-isolating worker is scheduled to work or carry out any other employment-related tasks during the isolation window (aside from working at home or the location where they are isolating), they must inform their employer that they are obliged to self-isolate, providing the start and end dates of that period. This notice must be supplied as soon as reasonably practicable and, in any case, before the worker is next due to commence work within the isolation period...

You may wish to consider separately: the implied term the fairness of a dismissal which prejudices Permanent Health Insurance (PHI) rights, under the statutory law on unfair dismissal Where PHI benefits depend on employment continuing, the High Court has implied a term preventing dismissal during incapacity, save for summary dismissal (gross misconduct) or another compelling ground (eg redundancy). In Briscoe v Lubrizol, the Court of Appeal signalled a broader carve-out, permitting dismissal for ‘reasonable and proper cause’. Even so, such a term is not always to be implied. In Lloyd v BCQ (EAT) no implication was made where: a later written contract omitted any reference to the PHI scheme and contained an entire agreement clause there was, overall, no contractual entitlement to scheme benefits the contract expressly permitted dismissal for prolonged illness For more detail, including reconciling Briscoe and Lloyd, see Practice Notes: Dealing with long-term or chronic sickness—Consider any Permanent Health Insurance (PHI)...