In this article
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 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 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 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 for help with procedural choice, missing information and deadlines.
Discuss annulment or financial relief and necessary ancillary requests. Seek information about unemployment benefit 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.
Practical checklist
- 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.
Apply this explanation to your situation
Continue with a related calculation, decision aid or worksheet. Your answers stay on your device.
Choose an employment lawyer who fits your needsPrepare a search profile and a clear discussion agenda for independent legal help.Build your employment law case fileCreate a chronological record of facts, reference documents and bring your objective and open questions together in one transferable worksheet.Frequently asked questions
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
The sources used for this page are listed below. Open the original publication for the full rules and context.
Sources current as of:
- Publisher: Wettenbank · Overheid.nlDutch Civil Code 7:677 — prompt notice and communicationwetten.overheid.nlhttps://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/#Boek7_Titeldeel10_Afdeling9_Artikel677
- Publisher: RechtspraakDutch Supreme Court — Econocom, ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1668uitspraken.rechtspraak.nlhttps://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1668
- Publisher: RechtspraakArnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal — ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:5624uitspraken.rechtspraak.nlhttps://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:5624
- Publisher: RechtspraakDutch judiciary — employee petitionrechtspraak.nlhttps://www.rechtspraak.nl/onderwerpen/ontslag/verzoekschriftprocedure-werknemer
The source publications are in Dutch. All language editions cover Dutch law.
General information. Not a substitute for personal legal advice. This language edition contains draft translations based on official Dutch sources. Independent final legal review and native-language editing have not yet been recorded.
This language edition contains draft translations based on official Dutch sources. Independent final legal review and native-language editing have not yet been recorded.
Editing wikiLegal review
Not legally reviewed yetThis version has not been reviewed by a lawyer or legal professional. Checking sources or editing text is not legal approval.
Editorial team Arbeidsrecht in Nederland
We connect explanations to sources and record targeted changes. Legal review is attributed only to the actual reviewed version, with a real reviewer, date and scope. Human legal review of these articles remains open.

Ricardo van der Spoel
Editorial responsibility · Editorial organisation and technology