Summary dismissal, often referred to as instant dismissal, represents one of the most severe disciplinary measures available to employers. Its defining characteristic is the immediate termination of employment without notice or payment in lieu of notice. Because summary dismissal deprives an employee of both continued employment and the protections associated with ordinary notice periods, it remains an exceptional mechanism, circumscribed by stringent substantive and procedural requirements. This article examines the legal nature of summary dismissal, its grounding in common-law principles, and its practical implications for employers and employees. 

The Concept and Legal Nature of Summary Dismissal 

A summary dismissal occurs where an employer terminates the employment contract with immediate effect, alleging that the employee has committed gross misconduct amounting to a fundamental breach of contract. Grogan (Workplace Law, 7th ed.) describes summary dismissal as the employer’s declaration that it no longer considers itself bound by the employment contract from the moment of dismissal. The consequence is that the employee forfeits the right to work out the notice period and loses any entitlement to notice pay. 

The underlying legal rationale reflects classic contract law: a party is entitled to terminate a contract without notice if the counterparty repudiates the agreement by breaching a term so fundamental that the contract cannot reasonably continue. In employment law, the inquiry becomes whether the employee’s conduct has “gone to the root of the employment contract” and rendered continued employment intolerable. 

The Common-Law Test for Summary Dismissal 

The determination of fairness and lawfulness of a summary dismissal hinges on whether the employee committed gross misconduct constituting a fundamental breach of contractual obligations. Courts consistently emphasise that summary dismissal is permissible only where the misconduct is sufficiently serious to justify immediate termination. 

In Ngongoma v Education & Culture & Others (1992), the court held that an employee may be summarily dismissed only for misconduct of such gravity that it amounts to a material breach of the contract—one that undermines the entire employment relationship. Misconduct that falls short of this threshold cannot justify withholding notice pay, even if dismissal itself is substantively warranted. 

Thus, where misconduct is serious but not gross in nature, the employer may dismiss—but must still provide contractual or statutory notice. 

What Constitutes Gross Misconduct 

Gross misconduct typically includes dishonesty, insubordination, intoxication at work, violence, or conduct that seriously compromises safety, confidentiality, or trust. However, the categorisation of misconduct is context-specific. Employers may specify acts constituting gross misconduct in disciplinary codes, particularly where industry-specific risks exist. 

For example, failure to maintain hygiene standards may constitute gross misconduct in a food-processing environment, though it may be insignificant on a construction site. Similarly, breach of cybersecurity protocols may be treated as gross misconduct in technologically sensitive industries. 

The English case Pepper v Webb [1969] illustrates that a series of minor offences may cumulatively amount to gross misconduct. The employee’s history of inefficiency and insolence, coupled with his final expression of contempt toward his superior, formed sufficient grounds for summary dismissal. 

Fair and Unfair Grounds for Summary Dismissal 

Fair Grounds 

Fair grounds typically include, but are not limited to: 

• Theft, fraud, bribery, or other acts of dishonesty 
• Violence, assault, or harassment 
• Serious insubordination 
• Attending work under the influence of alcohol or drugs 
• Serious breaches of health and safety rules 
• Sabotage or intentional damage to property 
• Disclosing or stealing sensitive information 
• Starting a competing business in breach of fiduciary duties 
• Conduct that brings the employer into disrepute 

Conduct Unlikely to Justify Summary Dismissal 

Certain forms of poor performance or minor misconduct generally do not justify instant dismissal: 

• Tardiness or repeated lateness 
• High absenteeism (unless wilful and extreme) 
• Poor hygiene (outside highly regulated industries) 
• Substandard work or ordinary performance issues 

Dress code violations 

These issues must ordinarily be addressed through progressive discipline, counselling, or performance management processes. 

If an employer summarily dismisses an employee for conduct not amounting to gross misconduct, such dismissal may constitute wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) and may also amount to unfair dismissal if the statutory requirements of fairness are not met. 

Procedural Requirements: The Myth of “Instant” Termination 

Despite depictions of on-the-spot firings in media, legally compliant summary dismissal is rarely instantaneous. Employers must still follow a fair process, including: 

• Stating the intention to consider summary dismissal 
• Investigating the allegation and gathering evidence 
• Obtaining witness statements 
• Inviting the employee to a disciplinary hearing (with representation) 
• Affording the employee an opportunity to respond 
• Reaching a reasoned decision 

Issuing a formal letter of termination that sets out: 

• The misconduct relied on 
• The legal basis for summary dismissal 
• Relevant disciplinary history 
• The termination date 
• The right of appeal 

Failure to follow procedure may give rise to claims for unfair dismissal, even where gross misconduct is ultimately proven. 

Legal and Practical Consequences of Summary Dismissal 

For the employee, summary dismissal typically results in: 

• Immediate loss of employment 
• Loss of notice pay and sometimes other contractual benefits 
• Potential forfeiture of bonuses, incentives, or commissions (subject to contract) 
• Reputational consequences and difficulty securing future employment 

For employers, risks include: 

• Wrongful dismissal claims for unpaid notice 
• Unfair dismissal claims for procedural defects 
• Data-security vulnerabilities when an employee is removed abruptly 
• Potential damage to employee morale if the dismissal appears arbitrary 

Careful adherence to both substantive and procedural fairness is therefore essential. 

Distinguishing Summary Dismissal from Other Forms of Termination 

Dismissal generally requires notice and may be based on misconduct, incapacity, operational requirements, or other fair reasons. Summary dismissal, by contrast, is a narrow category reserved for gross misconduct and excludes notice obligations. 

Other concepts include: 

• Unfair dismissal: where the reason is not fair or the procedure is flawed 
• Constructive dismissal: where the employee resigns due to intolerable employer conduct 
• Wrongful dismissal: where the employer breaches contractual notice terms 
• Voluntary redundancy: where employees elect to leave during restructuring 

These distinctions are crucial for determining the rights and remedies available to employees. 

Conclusion 

Summary dismissal remains an exceptional remedy grounded in common-law principles of fundamental breach. It is available only where employee misconduct is so severe that it destroys the trust relationship and renders the continuation of employment impossible. While employers may be justified in dismissing summarily, they must conduct a thorough investigation and follow fair procedures. Misuse of summary dismissal exposes employers to significant legal risk, including claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal. 

In the final analysis, summary dismissal should be viewed not as a standard disciplinary tool, but as a measure reserved for the most serious cases of misconduct—those that strike at the very core of the employment relationship. 

Written by Ross Hendriks, Specialist Employment and Labour Law, SchoemanLaw Inc