A mistaken dismissal or a mistaken resignation? Ms Korpysa -v- Impact Recruitment Services [2025] EAT 22

Background

Ms Korpysa was an agency worker employed by Impact Recruitment Services (“Impact”).

In 2020, Ms Korpysa was informed that the workplace to which she had been assigned to, would be closing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This communication caused Ms Korpysa to mistakenly believe that she was being dismissed. As a result, she contacted Impact to request a copy of her employment contract and details of her accrued holiday entitlement. This, in turn, was misinterpreted by Impact as a resignation. Acting on that misunderstanding, Impact removed Ms Korpysa from its payroll and issued her with a P45.

Following receipt of her P45, Ms Korpysa issued a claim against Impact for unfair dismissal.

Employment Tribunal’s Decision

The Employment Tribunal (“ET”) was tasked with deciding whether Ms Korpysa had resigned, or whether she was dismissed by Impact.

Having determined that Impact had mistakenly believed that Ms Korpysa had requested her P45, and that “requesting her contract of employment and an advance against holiday pay is not a clear and unequivocal resignation,” the Tribunal held that the point at which Ms Korpysa was dismissed was when she was sent her P45.

Concluding that the reason for dismissal was a mistaken belief that Ms Korpysa had resigned, the ET held that Ms Korpysa was unfairly dismissed as mistaken belief is not one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”).

Impact appealed the ET’s decision.

Employment Appeal Tribunal Decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) overturned the ET’s findings. They held that “where a tribunal finds that the employer has engaged in conduct amounting to a dismissal because the person who decided upon that conduct genuinely, but mistakenly, believed that the employee had resigned, that belief is the reason for dismissal.” In such a case however, the EAT stated that the ET then needed to consider whether the reason fell within one of those set out in section 98 of the ERA 1996, in this instance, ‘some other substantial reason’ (“SOSR”), and if so, whether dismissal was fair or unfair.

The EAT therefore remitted the case back to the ET to consider and determine this point.

This case reinforces a number of points for employers such as:

• Ensuring that there is clear communication to avoid misunderstandings, especially regarding dismissal;
• Avoiding assumptions, particularly regarding resignations;
• To always follow a fair process when dismissing employees.

For further information or to discuss a potential employment law or discrimination claim, please contact our specialist employment solicitors on 0207 3950 5234 or info@rllaw.co.uk. We are ranked as a ‘Leading Firm’ in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners independent guides to the UK Legal Profession.

15 April 2025