You’re fired! Can you fire an employee over the phone without notice?

Employment Tribunal judgments involving football clubs often attract attention, and the recent case of Mr K A Hagan v The Millwall Football and Athletic Company (2305074/2023) offers some important reminders for employers about contract management, whistleblowing claims, and how not to handle dismissals.

The key issue in this case was how Mr Hagan’s contract was ended. While his claim for whistleblowing detriment failed, he succeeded in showing that Millwall FC breached his contract by dismissing him without proper notice and by failing to provide compliant written particulars. That small but significant breach cost the club compensation, statutory penalties, and unfavourable press coverage.

Factual background

Mr Hagan, a firefighter by profession, was engaged by Millwall FC on a part-time basis in November 2022 to coach their under-15 and under-16 football teams. He was paid £40 per session and typically delivered seven sessions a month. He worked under a part-time contract, although the contract lacked clarity on its duration and termination provisions.

Tensions arose between Mr Hagan and his line manager, Mr Jones, over various issues including safeguarding concerns, communication style, and coaching decisions.

In early 2023, Mr Hagan made two protected disclosures – one regarding a player’s medical condition and another concerning a player’s mental health. He also raised concerns about inappropriate music played during team transport and other safeguarding matters.

As the season continued, the relationship between Mr Hagan and Mr Jones deteriorated, with incidents including public disagreements and internal complaints. Following the end of the season, in June 2023, Mr Mlinar, the Millwall FC Academy Head of Coaching, decided not to renew Mr Hagan’s contract, citing the breakdown in Mr Hagan’s working relationship with Mr Jones and performance concerns. The decision was communicated by phone without written notice.

Tribunal’s findings

The Tribunal made several findings:

Relationship breakdown

The Tribunal found that Mr Mlinar decided to terminate/not to renew Mr Hagan’s contract because he concluded reasonably that the relationship between Mr Jones and Mr Hagan was untenable and not conducive to supporting players and that coaching provision being provided was not at a sufficiently high standard.

Whistleblowing detriment

The Tribunal accepted that Mr Hagan had made two protected disclosures – about the health of one player and the wellbeing of another. However, it found that these disclosures were not the reason his contract was terminated. By the time of the decision, those issues had been resolved, and the Tribunal accepted that the real driver was the breakdown in working relationships.

Breach of contract

The mistake by Millwall FC was the way Mr Hagan’s contract was ended. The written contract required 28 days’ notice in writing. Instead, Mr Hagan was informed orally of non-renewal in a phone call and not given any written notice. That amounted to a breach of contract, which entitled Mr Hagan to damages amounting to the 28 days written notice which he should have been given.

Non-compliant contract particulars

Millwall FC also failed to provide a compliant written statement of particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The contract lacked key details such as holiday entitlement and termination dates. As a result, the Tribunal imposed an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, which was four weeks’ pay.

Preparation time

Mr Hagan argued that earlier disclosure by Millwall FC of a pessimistic email sent by an HR advisory firm about the prospects of Millwall FC successfully defending the whistleblowing claim could have led to settlement, and accordingly withholding this email was unreasonable conduct of the litigation by Millwall FC which ought to lead to Mr Hagan being awarded compensation for his preparation time for the case. The Tribunal found that disclosure of this document, if relevant, would only have been ordered by the Tribunal 15 months after the claim started and in any event the email would not have had a bearing on the proceedings going ahead. The Tribunal found that Millwall FC did not act on the contents of this email, which were found to be inaccurate, and there was no requirement to disclose it earlier in the case since third-party opinions on prospective claims were irrelevant to the Tribunal.

Whist Millwall FC avoided having to pay for Mr Hagan’s preparation time, and the damages awarded to him were not financially significant, they lost the case with all of the consequent publicity and reputational damage.

Takeaways and top tips

1. Get contracts right from day one

Contracts must include all required particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, even for workers. This includes notice provisions, holiday entitlement, and contract duration. Regardless of staff being part-time or casual, contracts need to be legally compliant. Make sure to include notice periods, holiday entitlement, and (if relevant) fixed end dates. Missing details can expose you to claims and automatic penalties.

2. Never dismiss informally

A quick phone call might feel easier in practice, but it’s a costly shortcut from a legal and human perspective. Always follow the contract’s notice provisions and communicate in writing – even when dealing with short-term or zero-hours staff.

3. Keep good records of decision-making

If staff have raised concerns, HR must be able to show that later decisions (like termination or non-renewal) were based on performance or relationship issues, not other concerns such as protected disclosures. Clear documentation and objective reasoning for any adverse decision are essential.

4. Step in early when relationships sour

Don’t let personality clashes fester. Use mediation, structured feedback, or performance reviews to stop disputes spilling out in public.

5. HR advice is not privileged

Be careful when discussing sensitive issues with HR advisors. Any advice given from an HR advisor to a client is not legally privileged and would therefore potentially be disclosable at Tribunal. Whilst in this case the advice was not helpful to the Claimant, and obtained via a Subject Access Request from the HR advisors, the contents of the conversation being viewed provided a rather embarrassing moment for all involved.

If you have any questions on the above, get in touch with our Employment team who would be happy to help.

The material in this article is provided for guidance and general information only and is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice upon which you should rely. In particular, the information should not be used as a substitute for a full and proper consultation with a suitably qualified professional. Please do contact the Bates Wells team if you require further information.