Assistant solicitor dismissed for sending unauthorised letter: procedural unfairness but contributory conduct
An assistant solicitor was unfairly dismissed after being refused a postponement despite a fit note, but his award was cut by 50% for his own conduct. He received £1,177.51.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #refusal-to-obey-instruction
- #procedural-unfairness
- #acas-uplift
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was an assistant solicitor employed from 3 July 2015 until dismissal on 10 January 2021.
- The claimant sent a cessation letter to a client without authorisation and refused to retract it or apologise.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct based on sending the letter and insubordination.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the respondent proceeded with the disciplinary hearing in the claimant's absence despite a fit note.
- The tribunal held that the claimant would have been dismissed anyway if the hearing had been delayed, so a Polkey reduction was not applied.
- The basic and compensatory awards were reduced by 50% for contributory conduct, and a 15% ACAS uplift was applied.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant started work as an assistant solicitor for the respondent.
-
File note on monthly updates
Claimant was instructed to call Clients A and B monthly for updates on their case.
-
First email to Client A
Claimant emailed Client A seeking an update and missing documents, then threatened to end the agreement within 3 days.
-
Second letter to Client A
Claimant sent a further letter giving 14 days to comply or the agreement would end and costs would be sought.
-
Respondent's instruction to retract
Ms Aghaeze instructed the claimant to retract the letter and apologise; claimant refused.
-
Claimant took time off
Claimant emailed stating he would not return until the disciplinary process was clarified.
-
Fit note provided
Claimant provided a fit note covering 2-16 January 2020; respondent refused to postpone the hearing.
-
Dismissal
Disciplinary hearing proceeded in claimant's absence; he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Final hearing day 1
Substantive hearing commenced at Watford Employment Tribunal.
-
Final hearing day 2
Judgment given; unfair dismissal claim upheld and remedy awarded.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, considering whether the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, carried out a reasonable investigation, and acted within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal.
The key reason was procedural unfairness: the employer proceeded with the disciplinary hearing in the claimant's absence despite being presented with a fit note covering the hearing date. This was outside the range of reasonable responses.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £1,535.88, reduced by 50% for contributory conduct (£767.94)
- Compensatory award: £511.96, reduced by 50% for contributory conduct (£255.98)
- ACAS uplift of 15%: £153.59
- Total: £1,177.51
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should postpone disciplinary hearings if an employee provides a fit note covering the hearing date, unless there are compelling reasons not to.
- Employees who refuse to follow reasonable instructions risk having their compensation reduced for contributory conduct.
- A small employer may still be expected to follow basic procedural fairness, including considering postponements for medical evidence.
What this case shows
This case highlights how a relatively straightforward misconduct dismissal can be undermined by procedural errors. The assistant solicitor sent a letter to a client without authorisation and then refused to retract it or apologise. The employer, a small law firm, dismissed him for gross misconduct. However, the tribunal found the process unfair because the disciplinary hearing went ahead in the employee's absence despite him providing a fit note for that period.
What could have been done differently
The employer could have postponed the hearing by a few days or weeks to allow the employee to attend. Even if the employee's conduct was serious, proceeding without giving him a chance to present his case made the dismissal procedurally unfair. The tribunal noted that the employer was a small business, but that did not excuse the failure to consider the fit note.
Why the result matters
The case shows that even where an employee's own conduct is blameworthy, employers must still follow fair procedures. The tribunal found that the employee would have been dismissed anyway if the hearing had been postponed, so no Polkey reduction was applied. However, the employee's refusal to follow instructions meant his compensation was halved for contributory fault. The total award of £1,177.51 reflects both the employer's procedural failure and the employee's own responsibility.
Similar cases
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Manager dismissed for password breach wins unfair dismissal claim
A manager with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into password sharing and order deletion. The tribunal awarded £5,552 but reduced compensation because he contributed to his own dismissal.
Lead nurse dismissed for breaching patient confidentiality: procedural failings led to unfair dismissal finding
A lead nurse specialist was unfairly dismissed by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust after the trust failed to properly handle her grievance. The tribunal found she had committed gross misconduct but the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
Tanker driver dismissed for delayed incident report: procedural failure but fair outcome
A tanker driver was unfairly dismissed after failing to report dropping a hose on her foot, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway, awarding only £807.