Bursar summarily dismissed without notice: £97k award for unfair and wrongful dismissal
A bursar and clerk to the governors was summarily dismissed without notice or pay. The tribunal awarded £97,220.70 for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unpaid holiday pay, plus a penalty for failing to provide written particulars.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #summary-dismissal
- #no-reference
- #mitigation
- #age-discrimination
- #local-labour-market
- #statutory-particulars
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Bursar and Clerk to the Governors from 14 October 2014.
- She was dismissed with immediate effect on 25 March 2022 without notice or pay in lieu.
- The respondents failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
- The claimant found alternative employment but at a lower salary.
- The tribunal found the claimant had made reasonable efforts to mitigate her loss.
- The respondents were jointly and severally liable for the awards.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant started work as Bursar and Clerk to the Governors at Wellesley House prep school.
-
TUPE transfer
The school business transferred to Wellesley House School Ltd (R2).
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended from work.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed without notice.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal decision.
-
First job application
Claimant made her first job application after dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing took place.
-
Freelance work started
Claimant started freelance work for a golf club.
-
Clerk to Governors role
Claimant appointed as self-employed Clerk to the Governors of the Wellesley House trust.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal outcome communicated, dismissal upheld.
-
Finance Officer role
Claimant employed as Finance Officer for the golf club.
-
Finance Assistant role
Claimant started as part-time Finance Assistant for a holiday home company.
-
Liability judgment
Employment Judge Klimov entered judgment on liability for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and holiday pay.
-
Remedy hearing
Employment Judge Carney determined compensation amounts.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide the amount of compensation for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unpaid holiday pay, including whether the claimant had reasonably mitigated her loss and whether any adjustments were needed for failure to provide written particulars.
The outcome
The claimant won her claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair and that the employer had no right to dismiss without notice.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £5,712.00
- Compensatory award: £54,218.04
- Wrongful dismissal (notice pay): £31,211.62
- Holiday pay: £4,991.04
- Failure to provide written particulars: £1,088.00
- Total: £97,220.70
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow a fair disciplinary process before dismissing an employee, even if they believe there is gross misconduct.
- Summary dismissal without notice or pay in lieu is only justified in cases of gross misconduct, and the employer must be able to prove it.
- Failing to provide a written statement of employment particulars can result in an additional penalty of up to four weeks' pay.
- Claimants who find alternative employment quickly can still recover ongoing loss if the new job pays less, provided they have made reasonable efforts to mitigate.
What this case shows
A bursar and clerk to the governors with seven years' service was summarily dismissed without notice or pay in lieu. The employer did not follow a fair process, and the tribunal found the dismissal was both unfair and wrongful. The case highlights the importance of proper procedure, even when an employer believes it has grounds for summary dismissal.
The claimant was dismissed on 25 March 2022 and immediately lost her salary of £54,218 per year plus benefits. She acted quickly to find work, starting freelance work in May 2022 and securing a full-time role in August 2022, albeit at a lower salary. The tribunal accepted she had made reasonable efforts to mitigate her loss.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided liability by following a fair disciplinary process, giving the claimant an opportunity to respond to allegations, and considering alternatives to dismissal. If summary dismissal was not justified, they should have given notice or pay in lieu. Providing written employment particulars from the start would also have avoided the additional penalty.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employees with sufficient service have the right to a fair process before dismissal. Even if an employer believes there is gross misconduct, they must follow the ACAS code or face significant compensation. The award of over £97,000 reflects not just the loss of earnings but also the failure to provide notice and holiday pay, plus a penalty for missing written particulars. For employees, it shows the importance of keeping records and seeking alternative work to mitigate loss.
Similar cases
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Payments consultant allowed to add minimum wage and wrongful dismissal claims
A tribunal has granted a payments consultant permission to amend his claim to include wrongful dismissal and National Minimum Wage complaints, but refused to add automatic unfair dismissal. The case highlights the hurdles of bringing claims when working through a limited company.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.