There are certain topics that we, as solicitors, keep a close eye on, as new case law is constantly emerging that we can apply. The subject of summary dismissal certainly falls into this category. This week: is it possible for an employee not to receive fair compensation, even though the dismissal was unfair?

What is the case about?

The employee has been working since 1 September 2022 under an on-call contract for the employer, a transport company, as a (supervisor) in the unloading team. On 23 October 2025, a dispute arose in the workplace between the employee and the director. The employee states that he will not be coming to work the following day and leaves. A few days later, on 28 October, the employee returns to work. Another argument then arises with the director, after which the employee is sent home and has to hand in his access key.

A few days later, on 7 and 11 November, the employee sends messages via WhatsApp to his employer regarding his departure. He requests written confirmation of his dismissal or the termination of his contract. Subsequently, his representative sends a letter to the employer requesting payment of a number of sums. These payments are not made, whereupon the employee takes the matter to court.

In the proceedings that followed, the employee argued that the summary dismissal was not legally valid, and he claimed, among other things, compensation for wrongful termination, the transition payment and equitable compensation of €3,000 gross. Although the employee accepted the dismissal, he believed that the employer had acted in a seriously culpable manner and that he was therefore entitled to equitable compensation.

How does the subdistrict court rule?

The subdistrict court makes short work of the summary dismissal: it is not legally valid. According to the employer, the employee terminated the employment contract himself, but the court does not agree: under certain circumstances, an employer has a duty to investigate whether an employee genuinely wished to resign and to inform the employee of the consequences of such a resignation. However, the employer failed to do so. Furthermore, on 28 October, the employer stated that “the working relationship has hereby come to an end”. According to the judge, this can only be interpreted as summary dismissal by the employer. However, the employer had no urgent reason for such dismissal. And that is one of the requirements for a legally valid summary dismissal.

In short: the employee’s employment continued after 28 October. The employee is therefore correct in his argument that this constituted an – unjustified – summary dismissal. The employer must therefore pay compensation for wrongful termination as well as the transition payment.

Notably: the employer is not required to pay fair compensation. The reason? The employee had provided “insufficient” grounds for his claim on this point, according to the judge. Moreover, the employee had already found a new job just a few weeks after the end of his employment with the transport company. The loss of income is already compensated by the compensation for wrongful termination. The subdistrict court also took into account that, even if the employer had not dismissed the employee, the employment relationship would not have lasted much longer. The employee had, in fact, admitted during the hearing that he had been coming to work with less enthusiasm for some time.

You can read the full judgment here.

Conclusion

Both employers and employees can learn lessons from this case. Firstly: employers, do not be too quick to assume that an employee has resigned in the heat of the moment, but check whether he or she really intended to terminate the employment contract. This prevents unclear situations such as the one in this case.

Secondly, we advise employees to provide very solid grounds for any claims relating to summary dismissal. This certainly applies to a request for the award of fair compensation. Simply referring to “comparable cases in case law”, as happened in this case, is certainly not enough. So make it clear why fair compensation is indeed appropriate and demonstrate that a loss of income has been suffered.

Do you have any questions regarding employment law? The team at SPEE advocaten & mediation is here to help!