Search

How can we help?

Icon

Can a dismissal be fair without an appeal hearing? 

Employees with two year’s continuous service have the right not to be unfairly  dismissed (and no length of services is required in cases of ‘automatically unfair’ dismissals). But can a dismissal be deemed fair with an appeal hearing?

The law on unfair dismissal 

To avoid a tribunal finding of unfair dismissal the employer must show three things: 

  • A potentially fair reason to dismiss; 
  • That a fair procedure was followed; 
  • That the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances of the case. 

Many employees are now aware of the importance of following this second requirement – the fair procedure – and will offer the employee the right to appeal.  

In the vast majority of cases this will certainly be the right course of action to take. In the case of Moore v Phoenix Product Development Limited the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that the dismissal was fair without an appeal hearing. However, the EAT decision should not be taken as a green light to dispel with appeal hearings. The facts in Moore will not fit with most dismissals. 

Moore V Phoenix Product Development Ltd 

The claimant was an inventor who stepped down as CEO of the Respondent company. ?He stayed on as director and employee but was unable to accept that he no longer led the Company.  

Working relations broke down irretrievably and he was dismissed under the category of ‘some other substantial reason’. He was not offered a right to appeal his dismissal as the respondent believed the appeal would be futile. Mr Moore lodged an unfair dismissal claim. He lost.    

Both the tribunal and the EAT agreed with the respondents that an appeal would have been futile. The respondent was able to show evidence of the claimant’s foul and abusive emails, his confrontational behaviour and that he was entirely responsible for the breakdown in relationships.   

Employees with two year’s continuous service have the right not to be unfairly  dismissed.

What should employers do now?  

The safest course of action is to continue to offer employees the right of appeal. Appoint someone of appropriate seniority to hear the appeal who has not previously been involved in the disciplinary hearing.  Make sure the appeal chair explains in writing their reasons for dismissing the appeal if that is their decision.  

If you are sure the Claimant’s behaviour falls into the category of Mr Moore’s making an appeal futile, make sure you have documentary evidence of the unreasonable conduct to justify not offering an appeal.  

Also be aware that even if a tribunal finds that the dismissal was substantively fair it may still impose  financial penalties on an employer who fails to follow a fair procedure. This could be awarding the claimant for loss of earnings to cover the time (typically a few weeks) it would have taken to have arranged and heard the appeal. Or impose a percentage uplift (up to 25%) on any loss of earning compensation for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievances.   

Finally, employers could consider if they should make more use of some substantial other reason (SOSR) as a fair reason for dismissal,  where the circumstances warrant it.  

SOSR is one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal which is often underused by employers because they are less familiar with it than conduct and capability dismissals. SOSR can be used as a stand-alone reason or as  alternative to use in conjunction with conduct and capability dismissals.  

For legal advice on dismissal and redundancies contact our unfair dismissal lawyers.  

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 06 January 2026
  • Commercial Real Estate

FAQ – Buying a commercial property in England and Wales

If you want to invest in the commercial property market in England and Wales (the two countries share the same jurisdiction), it is important to understand that the process differs significantly from buying a property in France.

art
  • 05 January 2026
  • Immigration

UK Immigration changes in 2025: What to expect in 2026

This wrap-up brings together the key developments from across the year, highlighting what has changed, what is still evolving, and what organisations should be planning for as we move into 2026.

art
  • 22 December 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Corporate law in 2025 and looking forward to 2026

2025 has been a transformative year, with a massive paradigm shift from ‘deregulation’ to ‘transparency and accountability’ at Companies House.

Pub
  • 22 December 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

GDPR Packages

Our comprehensive GDPR Packages are designed to help organisations navigate the complexities of data protection and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

art
  • 18 December 2025
  • Employment

Employment Law: Looking back at 2025 and what to expect in 2026

2025 has certainly been an interesting year for employment law. While the Employment Rights Bill has pulled much of the focus since it was introduced in October 2024, there have been other important updates this year as well.

art
  • 18 December 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Deal Announcement: Clarkslegal’s corporate lawyers advise on the sale of Chatterbox Labs Limited to subsidiary of American tech giant

Clarkslegal’s corporate team, led by Senior Consultant Jon Chapman and supported by Senior Solicitor Emma Docking, advised the founders of Chatterbox Labs Limited on the sale of the AI security specialist to Red Hat, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of IBM.