UK Employers: You Can Fire Someone the Wrong Way — and Still Be Right

It’s been a little while since I last published an insight, so I’m excited to share this one.

This topic matters because it gets to a very uncomfortable truth in employment decisions:

Sometimes a company can be right about the employee — and still get the termination wrong.

That sounds contradictory, but it isn’t.

And with changes coming under the UK Employment Rights Act 2025, the consequences of getting that process wrong may become much more serious.

You Can Be Right — and Still Have a Problem

Sometimes the situation feels obvious.

The employee is underperforming.
The trust is gone.
Leadership has already made up its mind.

Everyone agrees:

“This person should no longer be here.”

So the company moves quickly.

No formal warnings.
No structured process.
No documentation that clearly tells the story.

Just a decision — and then an exit.

From a business standpoint, that may feel reasonable.

From a legal standpoint, it may still create a problem.

Here’s the Hard Truth

You can fire someone for the right reason — and still do it the wrong way.

That is what makes terminations so tricky.

A company may have a real and valid reason for ending employment. But if it skips important steps along the way, a court may still find the dismissal unfair.

Not because the outcome was necessarily wrong.

But because the process did not support it.

A Simple Example

Imagine an employee has been underperforming for a year.

They have missed targets.
Their manager has lost confidence.
Leadership no longer believes the situation will improve.

But none of that has been clearly documented.

There were no formal warnings.
No clear performance process.
No written record showing what was communicated and when.

Then one day, the company decides to terminate.

From the company’s perspective, the decision may make perfect sense.

But from the court’s perspective, the process may look incomplete.

What a Court Might Say

A court might look at that case and say:

“Yes, this employee probably would have been terminated.”

But also:

“You did not follow a fair process.”

That means the company can still lose.

Then comes the next question:

If the company had followed the correct process, would the employee have been terminated anyway?

If the answer is yes, the court may reduce how much money the employee receives.

Lawyers call this a Polkey reduction.

You do not need to remember the term.

What matters is the idea:

The process was unfair.
But the final outcome may have been the same.

Why This Matters More Now

This concept is not new.

What is new is the level of risk around it.

Under the UK Employment Rights Act 2025, two important changes are expected to take effect on January 1, 2027:

• Employees will gain unfair dismissal protection sooner

• The cap on the compensatory award for ordinary unfair dismissal is expected to be removed

That changes the math.

If compensation is no longer capped, the cost of getting a dismissal process wrong can become much higher.

That means arguments about whether the employee would have been dismissed anyway may become much more important than they used to be.

Not because the process matters less.

But because the financial stakes are greater.

The Mistake Many Employers Make

One of the easiest traps for employers is this:

“We were right, so we’re safe.”

That is not always true.

You can be right about the employee.
You can be right about the business need.
You can be right that the relationship had to end.

And still have legal exposure because the process was rushed, incomplete, or poorly documented.

That gap is where risk lives.

What Actually Protects the Decision

The process is what protects the decision.

Not just the business logic.
Not just the manager’s instincts.
Not just the fact that everyone internally agreed.

The process.

That means:

• Giving feedback early

• Documenting performance clearly

• Following a consistent approach

• Slowing down, even when the answer feels obvious

Because at some point, someone may ask:

“Can you show how you got here?”

And if the answer is unclear, the company is already in a weaker position.

The Real Tradeoff

In the real world, employers often feel pressure to move fast.

There may be concerns about morale, confidentiality, productivity, or disruption.

That pressure is real.

But skipping process does not remove risk.

It just changes the type of risk.

Instead of dealing with operational discomfort now, the company may end up dealing with legal and financial exposure later.

That is not always a good trade.

A Simple Way to Think About It

Before a termination happens, ask one question:

“If we followed the full process, would we end up in the same place?”

If the answer is yes, that does not mean process no longer matters.

It means process matters even more.

Because process is what makes that answer believable later.

Closing Thought

With the law changing and the financial exposure increasing, this is not a technical issue HR and People Ops teams can afford to ignore.

It is not enough to be right.

You have to be able to show your work.

And in employment decisions, your work is the process.

Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal outcomes depend on specific facts, procedural posture, and evolving case law. Employers should consult experienced counsel regarding their particular circumstances.