Nurse dismissed for taking unauthorised leave: unfair dismissal claim fails but wrongful dismissal succeeds
A nurse with 15 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after taking annual leave that was only partially approved. The tribunal upheld her wrongful dismissal claim, awarding £5,275.36.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #clean-disciplinary-record
- #annual-leave-dispute
- #failure-to-provide-documents
- #gross-misconduct-allegation
- #wrongful-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a nurse from 7 March 2005 until 7 May 2019.
- She requested 4 weeks annual leave but was only approved for 3 weeks.
- She flew to Trinidad on 4 December 2018 and returned on 16 January 2019.
- The respondent dismissed her for gross misconduct, citing failure to provide requested documents and dishonesty.
- The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim not well-founded but the wrongful dismissal claim well-founded.
- The parties agreed compensation for wrongful dismissal of £5,275.36.
Timeline
-
Annual leave request
Claimant requested 4 weeks annual leave from 3 to 30 December 2018 for a family reunion.
-
Partial approval
Respondent approved 3 weeks annual leave but not 4 weeks.
-
Request for unpaid leave
Claimant requested one week unpaid leave from 25 to 31 December 2018, stating she had already booked tickets.
-
Travel to Trinidad
Claimant flew to Trinidad. Her return flight was originally booked for 26 December 2018.
-
First request for documents
Respondent wrote to claimant requesting copy of flight ticket, booking confirmation, and explanation for ignoring annual leave policy.
-
Medical unfitness
Claimant visited a doctor in Trinidad and was declared unfit to travel for 29 days.
-
Return to UK
Claimant returned to the UK after changing her flight to 15 January 2019.
-
Second request for documents
Respondent requested original flight booking and documents showing attempts to change booking.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing chaired by Sakshi Wahi; claimant accompanied by trade union representative.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct due to failure to provide documents and dishonesty.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the nurse's dismissal for misconduct was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether the employer was entitled to dismiss without notice for gross misconduct.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim but upheld the wrongful dismissal claim.
The key reason was that the employer had a genuine belief in the nurse's misconduct and followed a reasonable procedure, so the dismissal was fair. However, the conduct did not meet the high threshold for gross misconduct, meaning the employer should have given contractual notice.
Compensation:
- Agreed compensation for wrongful dismissal: £5,275.36
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-serving employees with clean records may still be fairly dismissed if the employer follows a reasonable procedure and genuinely believes misconduct occurred.
- Employers should carefully assess whether misconduct meets the threshold for gross misconduct before dismissing without notice, as tribunals will scrutinise this closely.
- Employees should not book travel until annual leave is fully approved, as unauthorised absence can be treated as misconduct.
This case shows how a dispute over annual leave can escalate into a dismissal, even for a long-serving employee with a clean record. The nurse, employed for 15 years, requested four weeks' leave for a family reunion but was only approved for three. She travelled anyway, and when asked for documents, she failed to provide them promptly. The employer dismissed her for gross misconduct, citing failure to comply with instructions and dishonesty.
What the employer did right
The tribunal found that the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct and followed a reasonable disciplinary process. This meant the dismissal was fair, even though the nurse had a long service record. The key lesson for employers is that a fair procedure can protect against unfair dismissal claims, even when the outcome seems harsh.
Where the employer went wrong
However, the employer was not entitled to dismiss without notice. The tribunal decided that the nurse's conduct did not amount to gross misconduct. The failure to provide documents was not deliberate dishonesty, and the unauthorised leave, while a breach of policy, was not serious enough to justify summary dismissal. This distinction cost the employer £5,275.36 in wrongful dismissal compensation.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that even a long service record does not guarantee protection from a fair dismissal if the employer follows proper procedures. But it also shows that employers cannot automatically treat every policy breach as gross misconduct. The difference between a fair dismissal and a wrongful one often comes down to the severity of the conduct and whether the employer acted proportionately.
Similar cases
11 years' service, clean record: misconduct dismissal upheld despite disability
A tribunal dismissed all claims from a former employee with 11 years' service and a clean disciplinary record, finding his misconduct dismissal fair and not discriminatory.
Managing director with 31 years' service dismissed without process: unfair and wrongful dismissal
A managing director with 31 years' service was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after being told his employment was ending at a hotel meeting, with no prior investigation or disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £61,625.82.
Senior bookseller dismissed without notice after 13 years: procedural failings led to unfair dismissal
A senior bookseller with 13 years' service was unfairly dismissed after being summarily dismissed during an investigation meeting. The tribunal awarded £11,471.80, including a 12.5% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.
Site manager with 26 years' service unfairly dismissed after owner's family dispute
A site manager with 26 years' service was unfairly dismissed for alleged gross misconduct after a breakdown in the relationship between the owner and his son. The tribunal awarded £51,785, including a 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.
