Whistleblower unfairly dismissed after being set unattainable targets
A senior underwriter with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after raising concerns about a potentially fraudulent claim. The tribunal found the employer failed to investigate whether the performance targets were reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant made protected disclosures on 27 November 2019 and 4 May 2020 about a potentially fraudulent insurance claim.
- The claimant was set performance objectives on 20 November 2020 that were significantly higher than his previous output.
- The claimant was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan on 6 May 2021 due to failure to meet objectives.
- The claimant's dismissal on 9 August 2021 was for failure to engage with the PIP and breakdown of trust and confidence.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent failed to investigate the reasonableness of the objectives and gave inadequate notice of the breakdown of trust issue.
Timeline
-
First protected disclosure
The claimant told colleagues that the ENI claim was probably not valid and implicitly fraudulent.
-
Second protected disclosure
The claimant emailed suggesting that loss adjuster Matthews Daniel may have willingly not challenged facts, implying complicity in fraud.
-
Objectives set
The claimant was set nine personal objectives, including targets for risk count, submission count and premium income that were much higher than his previous performance.
-
Decision to move to formal PIP
At a review meeting, the claimant was told that due to poor performance, the respondent would move to a formal performance improvement process.
-
Meeting with CEO
The claimant met with CEO Ian Beaton and alleged fraud in the ENI claim, stating that managers were complicit.
-
Formal PIP meeting
The claimant attended the first formal PIP meeting; a settlement agreement was discussed but not accepted.
-
Disciplinary hearing
The claimant attended a disciplinary hearing regarding failure to engage with the PIP; breakdown of trust was raised.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for failure to engage with the PIP and breakdown of trust and confidence.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed because of his protected disclosures (automatic unfair dismissal) or for conduct/performance reasons, and whether the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but not automatically unfair for whistleblowing. The key reasons were that the employer failed to investigate whether the performance objectives were reasonable and failed to give the claimant adequate notice that a breakdown of trust and confidence was being considered as a potential reason for dismissal.
No compensation has yet been awarded – the remedy hearing is to be listed. The claimant's complaints of detriment for making protected disclosures were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you make a protected disclosure, keep a clear record of what you said, when, and to whom.
- Employers must ensure performance targets are reasonable and achievable before using failure to meet them as grounds for dismissal.
- A breakdown of trust and confidence should be raised clearly with the employee before it becomes a reason for dismissal.
- Length of service can strengthen a claim for unfair dismissal – longer-serving employees are entitled to more procedural fairness.
A whistleblower's dismissal
A senior underwriter with 17 years' experience at Ark Syndicate Management Ltd was dismissed after raising concerns about a potentially fraudulent insurance claim. The tribunal found that while his whistleblowing was not the reason for his dismissal, the process that led to his sacking was unfair.
The claimant had made several protected disclosures between November 2019 and May 2020, suggesting that a claim from ENI was fraudulent. In November 2020, he was set performance objectives that were significantly higher than his previous output. When he failed to meet them, he was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan and later dismissed for failure to engage with the PIP and a breakdown of trust and confidence.
What the employer did wrong
The tribunal identified two key failings. First, the employer did not investigate whether the objectives were reasonable – they simply imposed targets that were far above the claimant's historical performance. Second, the breakdown of trust and confidence was raised only at the disciplinary hearing, giving the claimant no real opportunity to address it. These procedural flaws made the dismissal unfair.
However, the tribunal rejected the claim that the dismissal was automatically unfair for whistleblowing. It found that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct and performance, not his disclosures.
What this means for similar cases
This case highlights the importance of fair process when dismissing an employee for performance or conduct. Employers must set reasonable targets, give employees a chance to improve, and clearly communicate any concerns about trust and confidence. For employees, it shows that even if a whistleblowing claim fails, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim can succeed if the process was flawed. The remedy hearing will determine what compensation, if any, is awarded.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.
Audit Assistant Manager loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim against Grant Thornton
An Audit Assistant Manager with 2 years' service who resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan has lost his claims of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable cause for its actions.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.