EN
HR Legal

Employee ignored instructions and got a justified summary dismissal

logo
Legal news
calendar 13 November 2025
globus Denmark

An employee at a law firm was summarily dismissed after she failed to show up for a meeting and gave misleading information to investigators. The Norwegian District Court agreed that her actions were so serious that the reaction was justified.

An associate in a small law firm arranged an interview with the police regarding a matter she had for a client. She scheduled the meeting without informing anyone, even though she had been told not to handle the matter.

On the day of the meeting, she didn’t show up. When the meeting participant called her, she informed them that she was no longer employed and did not share the contact information for the responsible lawyer. The next day, she was called to a discussion meeting set for five days later. When she failed to appear, the responsible lawyer sent a written summary dismissal the same day.

The Norwegian District Court agreed that the dismissal was justified. Her actions were a gross breach of her duty of loyalty. Additionally, the episode had materially damaged the company’s reputation. The Court also noted that previous issues – such as ignoring instructions, failing to report on her work, and not submitting timesheets – made further cooperation impossible.

IUNO’s opinion

 A summary dismissal is a serious reaction and requires specific grounds. This case shows that disloyal behaviour can justify a summary dismissal when it harms the company’s reputation. We have previously written about a summary dismissal due to sexual harassment here.

IUNO recommends that companies only consider a summary dismissal when there is a clear and acute need for immediate action. It is important to document instructions, warnings, and follow-ups carefully to show that the employee was given a fair chance to correct their behavior. The burden of proof is higher in summary dismissal cases than in termination cases because of the more severe consequences for the employee. 

[The Follo and Nordre Østfold District Court’s judgement of 24 September 2025 in case TFNO-2024-175332]

An associate in a small law firm arranged an interview with the police regarding a matter she had for a client. She scheduled the meeting without informing anyone, even though she had been told not to handle the matter.

On the day of the meeting, she didn’t show up. When the meeting participant called her, she informed them that she was no longer employed and did not share the contact information for the responsible lawyer. The next day, she was called to a discussion meeting set for five days later. When she failed to appear, the responsible lawyer sent a written summary dismissal the same day.

The Norwegian District Court agreed that the dismissal was justified. Her actions were a gross breach of her duty of loyalty. Additionally, the episode had materially damaged the company’s reputation. The Court also noted that previous issues – such as ignoring instructions, failing to report on her work, and not submitting timesheets – made further cooperation impossible.

IUNO’s opinion

 A summary dismissal is a serious reaction and requires specific grounds. This case shows that disloyal behaviour can justify a summary dismissal when it harms the company’s reputation. We have previously written about a summary dismissal due to sexual harassment here.

IUNO recommends that companies only consider a summary dismissal when there is a clear and acute need for immediate action. It is important to document instructions, warnings, and follow-ups carefully to show that the employee was given a fair chance to correct their behavior. The burden of proof is higher in summary dismissal cases than in termination cases because of the more severe consequences for the employee. 

[The Follo and Nordre Østfold District Court’s judgement of 24 September 2025 in case TFNO-2024-175332]

Receive our newsletter

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner

Kirsten

Astrup

Managing associate

Cecillie

Groth Henriksen

Senior associate

Johan

Gustav Dein

Senior associate

Emilie

Louise Børsch

Associate

Similar

logo
HR Legal

24 October 2025

Travel time between a meeting point and workplaces was working time

logo
HR Legal

22 October 2025

Employee lawfully waived re-employment rights

logo
HR Legal

24 September 2025

Reassignment assessment was not required for a slap in the face

logo
HR Legal

17 September 2025

A written warning was not enough to prevent sexual harassment

logo
HR Legal

1 September 2025

Legal to terminate whistleblower, but not to remove his duties

logo
HR Legal

1 September 2025

Changes to terms and conditions may trigger the rules on mass redundancies

The team

Alma

Winsløw-Lydeking

Senior legal assistant

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Cecillie

Groth Henriksen

Senior associate

Elias

Lederhaas

Legal assistant

Emilie

Louise Børsch

Associate

Frederikke

Ludvig Rossen

Junior legal assistant

Johan

Gustav Dein

Senior associate

Kirsten

Astrup

Managing associate

Laura

Dyvad Ziemer Markill

Legal assistant

Sunniva

Løfsgaard

Legal assistant

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner