Founder and CTO summarily dismissed on a Teams call: effective date of termination in dispute
A tribunal found that a founder and chief technology officer was summarily dismissed during a Teams call, despite the company later claiming otherwise. The preliminary ruling on the effective date of termination has implications for similar disputes.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #summary-dismissal
- #effective-date-of-termination
- #board-decision
- #founder-dismissal
- #credibility-assessment
Key facts
- The claimant was summarily dismissed by Mr Forlee during a Teams call on 5 July 2021.
- The board had agreed to dismiss the claimant prior to the call.
- The claimant's account of the call was preferred over Mr Forlee's.
- The respondent did not disabuse the claimant of his understanding that he had been dismissed until 30 July 2021.
- Two former CEOs had been exited in a similar manner.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as Chief Technology Officer and founder.
-
Role changed to Chairman and Chief Innovation Officer
Claimant's job title changed, effective from November 2020.
-
Email exchange about role boundaries
Mr Forlee raised concerns about blurring of responsibilities; claimant used phrase 'buried in the garden'.
-
Emails forwarded to lead shareholders
Mr Forlee forwarded the email exchange; shareholders reacted negatively.
-
Shareholder calls
Two calls between Mr Forlee and lead shareholders; agreement to dismiss claimant reached.
-
Claimant summarily dismissed
During a Teams call, Mr Forlee told claimant he was dismissed with immediate effect.
-
Second call between claimant and Mr Forlee
Claimant, under influence of alcohol, made threats; Mr Forlee noted claimant said he was 'dismissed without HR'.
-
Claimant's access revoked
Decision taken to revoke claimant's access to company systems and emails.
-
Respondent denies dismissal
Respondent wrote to claimant purporting to dismiss him and denying earlier dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to determine the effective date of termination—whether the claimant was summarily dismissed on 5 July 2021 during a Teams call, or at a later date when the company formally communicated the dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the claimant was dismissed on 5 July 2021, the date of the Teams call. The decision turned on credibility: the tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence over that of Mr Forlee, the chairman and acting CEO. Key factors included:
- The claimant's account of the call was consistent and supported by contemporaneous notes and witness evidence.
- The respondent did not correct the claimant's understanding that he had been dismissed until 30 July 2021.
- Two former CEOs had been exited in a similar manner, suggesting a pattern.
No compensation was awarded at this preliminary stage; the substantive unfair dismissal claim will proceed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed verbally, note the date, time, and details immediately—contemporaneous notes can be crucial evidence.
- Companies should clearly communicate dismissal decisions in writing and correct any misunderstandings promptly to avoid disputes over the effective date.
- A pattern of similar treatment of other employees can be used to support your version of events.
- The effective date of termination can be earlier than the formal written notice if a clear verbal dismissal has occurred.
The human story
This case highlights the confusion that can arise when a dismissal is communicated informally. The claimant, a founder and chief technology officer with nine years' service, was told he was dismissed with immediate effect during a Teams call. The company later tried to deny that this was the effective date, arguing that the dismissal only took effect weeks later. The tribunal had to decide which version of events was true.
What the company could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided this dispute by clearly documenting the dismissal decision and communicating it in writing. Instead, the chairman's account of the call was not believed, and the company's failure to correct the claimant's understanding for 25 days undermined its position. The tribunal also noted a pattern of similar treatment of other senior executives, which did not reflect well on the company.
Why this matters
This preliminary ruling is a reminder that the effective date of termination is a critical issue in unfair dismissal claims. It determines the claimant's continuity of service and the time limits for bringing a claim. Employers should ensure that dismissals are communicated clearly and consistently, and that any ambiguity is resolved promptly. For employees, the case shows the importance of keeping a record of what was said and when.
Similar cases
Dismissed by email: a day's delay that cost the claim
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out because he contacted ACAS two days after the three-month deadline, even though he read his dismissal email the day after it was sent.
Dismissed after 18 years: claim thrown out for being four days late
An employment tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim from a team manager with 18.5 years' service because it was presented just four days after the deadline. The key issue was the effective date of termination.
Self-employed sales director's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as out of time
A sales director who provided services as a self-employed worker was dismissed by telephone in July 2020. The tribunal ruled his unfair dismissal claim was presented too late and he was not an employee.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.