Issues arising on termination

A contract of employment can end in various ways, including dismissal, resignation and frustration. Unless the contract of employment specifically states otherwise, termination need not be effected in writing, and can, for example, be done orally.

If an employer wishes to dismiss an employee lawfully, the dismissal must not be unfair nor breach the employee's contract of employment. Having taken the decision to dismiss, there are further decisions for the employer, eg whether or not to:

•
give notice
•
pay the employee in lieu of notice, and/or
•
put the employee on garden leave

Distinguishing dismissal from other forms of termination

Not all terminations amount to a dismissal. Termination can also occur:

•
by resignation (although sometimes resignations will occur in circumstances that amount to a constructive dismissal)
•
by mutual consent, or
•
by operation of law

Tribunals are reluctant to find that there has been termination by mutual consent. Termination by operation of law is rare; its most common form is frustration of the contract. The expiry of a fixed-term contract without it being renewed is not a dismissal at common

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Employment News

Commission launches consultation on 2026-2030 Gender Equality Strategy

The European Commission has launched a public consultation on its Gender Equality Strategy for 2026-2030. The strategy aims to build on the 2020-2025 programme and recent Roadmap for Women's rights, outlining measures to enable women and men to reach their potential without limitations from gender stereotypes, gaps or violence. The strategy document will detail specific actions for advancing gender equality across Europe, with Commission adoption planned for the first quarter of 2026. The consultation period runs from 19 May to 11 August 2025.

Welsh Government launches consultation on Draft Disabled People’s Rights Plan: 2025 to 2035

The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the Draft Disabled People’s Rights Plan: 2025 to 2035. The plan has been developed in partnership with the Disability Rights Taskforce, policy officials, and external stakeholders to remove the systemic barriers that hinder disabled people from fully participating in society. The plan details the persistent inequalities and discrimination experienced by disabled people and sets out the government’s 10-year framework for improving the lives of disabled people in Welsh society, reducing prejudice and discrimination and adopting the social model of Disability. The plan is guided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People (UNCRDP).

Immigration reform plan creates new headaches for employers

Law360: The government's proposals to overhaul the UK immigration system, which it set out on 12 May 2025, are poorly targeted and will make it harder and more expensive for organisations to employ foreign nationals, lawyers say.

Employment weekly highlights—15 May 2025

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) amendments to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to extend the right to work regime to ‘gig economy’ workers, (2) comments from Sophie Barrett-Brown of Laura Devine Immigration and Katie Newbury of Kingsley Napley on the government’s Immigration White Paper, (3) the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s extended consultation period for updates to the Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, (4) an EAT case confirming that workers contracted via an employment business cannot make indirect discrimination claims based on discrepancies between their pay and that of directly employed workers, (5) a letter from the Department for Business and Trade announcing forthcoming extension to the whistleblowing regime in relation to UK sanctions, (6) a decision from the Supreme Court that Dyson cannot challenge jurisdiction in its forced labour case, (7) a Court of Appeal decision that the EAT interpretation of a ‘minor error’ under rule 37(6) of the EAT Rules was too narrow and (8) dates for your diary.