Was summary dismissal too late? Build the right timeline

Was summary dismissal too late? Build the right timeline

There is no universal rule that summary dismissal must always follow within one or two days. Notice and communication of the urgent ground must nevertheless be prompt. Where investigation is needed, the diligence of all relevant stages matters. Build a timeline from initial suspicion to dismissal, including interim information. Comparing only the final report’s date with the dismissal letter can miss an important part of the story.

Investigation may be needed but provides no unlimited delay.

Starting, conducting, learning findings and deciding dismissal each need attention.

An old event and a newly discovered event are not automatically the same.

Separate urgent ground from speed

Article 7:677 requires an urgent ground, prompt notice and prompt communication. Even a serious allegation does not itself establish timely action. Conversely a quick letter does not prove the accusation. The [main summary-dismissal guide](guide:ontslag-op-staande-voet) covers the whole route; this guide focuses on timing evidence.

Separately record the accusation and relevant moments. When did conduct occur, suspicion arise and each person receive information? An old incident may be discovered later. That does not automatically make dismissal late; knowledge and subsequent steps need examination. Avoid conclusions based only on calendar distance between conduct and dismissal.

Record who suspected what and when

Collect messages, reports, meeting invitations and earlier questions showing when the employer knew or investigated. Record senders’ and recipients’ roles as well as names. Knowledge of the person authorised to dismiss can be legally important. Establish who actually decided and how information reached them.

The employer bears the burden of alleging and proving promptness, as the Court of Appeal explains in paragraph 3.20 of its 2026 judgment. Your timeline does not transfer that burden to you. Nevertheless, identify specific delays with reasons and ask precisely what knowledge and investigation steps the employer relies on. Distinguish vague rumour, concrete suspicion and a fact established later. Record the document and its exact content for each moment. An isolated email saying “something is wrong” may reveal less than a detailed till statement. Identify missing links too: you may not know when a director received a report. Present that as a question for investigation rather than invented certainty.

Check four investigation stages

In Econocom in 2023, the Supreme Court described a framework for irregularity investigations: promptly begin, promptly conduct, promptly learn findings including interim ones, and promptly dismiss thereafter. Interim results may justify more investigation. A final report therefore does not automatically reset everything and erase earlier inactivity.

Divide the timeline into these stages. What was commissioned, when was information requested, when were replies available and when acted on? Record provable reasons for time, such as necessary further facts or hearing the employee. Do not assume every weekend, holiday or internal discussion always justifies delay. Circumstances and actual activity determine assessment.

Include multiple grounds and communication

A composite urgent ground requires assessment of the grounds together. The Supreme Court requires attention to diligence regarding that combination. Some facts may have been known earlier than others. For each allegation, organise discovery, investigation and significance to the ultimate dismissal.

Keep what was actually communicated at dismissal too. When and how did grounds become clear? A long letter with many allegations can raise another issue than a sharply defined act. Timing arguments do not replace the communication requirement. A 2026 appeal judgment illustrates that earlier knowledge and poor follow-up do not disappear when investigation is later repeated. This is case-specific, not an automatic result for all repeated inquiries.

Request targeted evidence without creating new risks

Use the [case-file builder](tool:dossier-builder) for dates, events, roles and sources. Retain correspondence and material you may lawfully possess. Through your adviser request specific employer information. Do not access blocked systems or take entire mailboxes or customer databases to prove one date.

Distinguish established dates and suspected ones. If a log or report is missing, ask whether preservation is necessary without changing files yourself. Include suspension and wage arrangements during investigation. A long investigation does not itself prove withholding salary was allowed; income can be separate from dismissal validity. Have a [wage claim](guide:loonvordering) assessed if necessary.

Protect court timing despite incomplete investigation

A petition against terminated employment generally has a two-month period after termination. Making a timeline, requesting evidence or seeking employer explanations does not replace timely filing. Do not await every internal detail. Use [finding a lawyer](tool:advocaat-zoeken) for help with procedural choice, missing information and deadlines.

Discuss annulment or financial relief and necessary ancillary requests. Seek information about [unemployment benefit](guide:ww) or other support promptly; culpable-unemployment assessment is separate. Any judgment or settlement must clarify wages, earlier dismissal and claims. A successful lateness argument does not automatically resolve every compensation or damages issue.

Fictional example: looking only at the final report

An employee is dismissed immediately after an external final report and assumes timing cannot be challenged. Earlier emails show a concrete concern months before and weeks of inactivity in the initial investigation. An adviser divides starting, conducting, learning and deciding and requests missing evidence. The report may contain necessary further inquiry, but does not automatically cure earlier delay. The result remains uncertain: facts and necessary investigative steps determine diligence. The employee also protects the petition deadline.

Dismissal letter and exact communication of grounds.

Incident, suspicion and knowledge of relevant decision-makers.

Investigation instructions, steps and duration.

Interim findings, receipt and follow-up.

Sources for each ground and specific missing links.

Suspension, wages, desired proceedings and monitored filing date.

Is there always a two-day maximum?

No fixed-day limit applies to every file. Investigation needs and diligence require case-specific assessment.

Does time start only with the final report?

Not automatically. Suspicion, earlier findings and how investigation and receipt of information were organised can already matter.

Is an old event always too late for summary dismissal?

No. An event may be discovered later. Distinguish conduct date from suspicion, knowledge and follow-up.

May I await all employer documents?

Not without protecting court timing. An information request does not automatically extend the forfeiture period. Seek help early to combine proceedings and evidence gathering.

Sources and editorial notes
Sources current as of: October 23, 2026
1. Dutch Civil Code 7:677 — prompt notice and communication
Publisher: Wettenbank · Overheid.nl
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/#Boek7_Titeldeel10_Afdeling9_Artikel677
2. Dutch Supreme Court — Econocom, ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1668
Publisher: Rechtspraak
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1668
3. Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal — ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:5624
Publisher: Rechtspraak
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:5624
4. Dutch judiciary — employee petition
Publisher: Rechtspraak
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/onderwerpen/ontslag/verzoekschriftprocedure-werknemer
The source publications are in Dutch. All language editions cover Dutch law.