What is the ratio in Polkey v AE Dayton Services?

The ratio is that procedural unfairness renders a dismissal unfair regardless of whether proper procedure would have changed the outcome, though compensation may be reduced accordingly.

What did the court decide in Polkey v AE Dayton Services?

The House of Lords held that dismissal without proper procedure was unfair despite the redundancy being genuine, rejecting the 'no difference' rule.

Why is Polkey v AE Dayton Services important for employment law?

It established that procedural fairness is fundamental to fair dismissal, ensuring employees receive proper treatment regardless of likely outcomes.

What is the ratio in Polkey v AE Dayton Services?

The ratio is that procedural unfairness renders a dismissal unfair regardless of whether proper procedure would have changed the outcome, though compensation may be reduced accordingly.

What did the court decide in Polkey v AE Dayton Services?

The House of Lords held that dismissal without proper procedure was unfair despite the redundancy being genuine, rejecting the 'no difference' rule.

Why is Polkey v AE Dayton Services important for employment law?

It established that procedural fairness is fundamental to fair dismissal, ensuring employees receive proper treatment regardless of likely outcomes.

Employment1 min read

Polkey v AE Dayton Services

[1988] AC 344House of Lords1988

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Employment cases →

“House of Lords rules unfair dismissal requires proper procedure regardless of outcome”

Facts

Mr Polkey was dismissed for redundancy without consultation or warning by AE Dayton Services. The employer argued that consultation would have been pointless as redundancy was inevitable due to business reorganisation.

Issues

Whether a dismissal can be fair under s98(4) Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 where proper procedure was not followed but would not have changed the outcome.

Held

The dismissal was unfair. A tribunal cannot find dismissal procedurally fair merely because following proper procedure would not have affected the outcome.

Significance

Polkey established a fundamental principle of employment law that procedural fairness in dismissals is mandatory regardless of outcome. It remains the leading authority on procedural requirements in unfair dismissal cases.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Polkey v AE Dayton Services. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1988] AC 344 (HL)

Employment LawAdministrative Law

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBSQE1

More Employment cases

Pepkolaj v Barrett Steel Ltd (Practice and Procedure)

[2026] UKEAT 14

Lamb v Teva UK Ltd (Unfair Dismissal)

[2026] UKEAT 8

J Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

[2026] EAT 7

Anea v OCS UK & I Ltd & Ors (Practice and Procedure)

[2026] UKEAT 21

MacAusland Design Limited v A Portosi

[2026] EAT 51

Chand v EE Ltd (Unfair dismissal; reason for dismissal; composite reason; fairness)

[2026] UKEAT 17

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.