And speaking of things we should remember brings me to the case of Betancourt v United Kingdom Research and Innovation 2025, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal had to determine whether Mr Betancourt had been wrongfully dismissed because his employer made an immediate payment in lieu of notice (PILON).

Mr Betancourt was employed by United Kingdom Research and Innovation from 23 January 2023 as a contracts co-ordinator. During his six month probationary period, trust and confidence began to break down between the parties. The deputy head of human resources, Ms Millar, raised concerns about Mr Betancourts’ behaviour, such as “failure to follow reasonable instructions at work”, “inflexibility with working hours,” and that Mr Betancourt did not  “wish to cooperate, compromise or reach mutual understanding unless it is on his own terms”.

As a term of the employer’s Probation Policy (which the employer accepted was contractual), Mr Betancourt was entitled to two probationary review meetings over the six-months, and so, Mr Betancourt was invited to a meeting scheduled for 15 March. It was explained to him that the meeting could have resulted in either the confirmation of appointment, a continuation of the probation or the termination of his contract of employment.

However, this meeting ended in Mr Betancourt being dismissed with immediate effect, and he was paid a payment in lieu of his five week notice period. Mr Betancourt’s contract of employment did not include the right for the employer to make a PILON. Mr Betancourt wished to appeal this decision but did not wish to be reinstated in his position. The employer did not agree to these conditions, and he therefore withdrew his appeal.

Mr Betancourt brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal for wrongful dismissal, and sought an uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.

The ET dismissed Mr Betancourt’s claim, stating that the employer was entitled to dismiss him before the end of the six-month probationary period. The Tribunal also determined that the employer was not entitled to make PILON under the contract, but concluded that no damages flowed from this technical breach and therefore the ET dismissed the claim quickly.

Mr Betancourt appealed this at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The EAT stated that the central issue was the purpose of procedural protections when a contract could be terminated by notice, regardless of whether the contract allowed for a PILON.

Relying on previous case law — Geys v Société Générale [2013] — Mr Betancourt sought to recover compensation from the remainder of his entire six-month probationary period.  The EAT upheld the appeal on the basis that the dismissal was wrongful as it did breach his contract of employment. The employer dismissed Mr Betancourt with immediate effect and made a PILON, without the contractual right to do so. While the immediate termination was wrongful, the employer was not required to pay any compensation.

The EAT reasoned that Mr Betancourt still would have been paid his five weeks’ notice had the employer followed its proper dismissal process. As no compensation was owed, there could be no uplift. Whilst the original decision was overturned, his appeal to receive compensation was ultimately dismissed.

This case highlights the importance of clearly outlining terms in a contract and adhering to those terms throughout the employment relationship. The decision underscores the potential consequences of not including key provisions, such as a PILON clause, and the risks associated with not following the agreed procedures for probationary periods and dismissals. By ensuring that contracts are comprehensive and followed correctly, employers can help avoid legal disputes and minimise the risk of claims, such as wrongful dismissal.