What you can learn from the £66k “incompetent boss” tribunal case

An engineering worker was awarded £66,295 plus £1,800 costs after his employer dismissed him for raising concerns about his manager’s competence.

The employer thought they had a reasonable case.

The tribunal thought otherwise.

And, from January 2027, cases like this are about to get a lot more expensive.

Here’s what happened and what it means for you.

“Obstructive and unsupportive”

Andrew Estcourt was a chief engineer who repeatedly raised concerns that his new manager didn’t have the engineering competence required for the role.

Rather than taking those concerns seriously, the business labelled him obstructive and unsupportive.

The client asked for him to be removed from the project. The employer agreed and Estcourt was subsequently dismissed.

The tribunal found that the dismissal was automatically unfair on whistleblowing grounds and awarded £66,295 plus £1,800 in costs.

The HR team were criticised for having shown complete disregard for fair process.

What the employer got wrong

There were several problems here, but a few stand out.

The employer used SOSR (some other substantial reason) as the basis for dismissal.

SOSR is a legitimate reason for dismissal in the right circumstances, but it requires substantial, evidenced justification. It’s not a catch-all you can reach for when things get awkward.

Using it without proper investigation or clear evidence leaves you exposed.

The employer also assumed that a client requesting someone’s removal was enough to justify dismissal.

It isn’t.

A client asking you to take someone off a project doesn’t automatically give you a fair reason to end their employment. You still need to investigate, consider alternatives and follow a proper process.

Then, critically, Estcourt’s concerns about his manager’s competence weren’t just complaints. They were protected disclosures under whistleblowing law.

If an employee raises concerns that touch on health, safety or legal compliance, that can qualify as a protected disclosure and dismissing someone for making one is automatically unfair, no matter how the process looked on paper.

On top of that, the grievance process and the dismissal process were running in parallel, with the same decision-makers involved in both. That’s a serious impartiality problem.

The practical lessons

Whether you have two employees or two hundred, the same principles apply.

✓ When an employee raises a concern, take it seriously and investigate it properly before you do anything else.

✓ If a client asks you to remove an employee from a project, that’s a commercial decision that needs careful handling. It doesn’t automatically translate into a dismissal and treating it as if it does will cost you.

✓ Keep your processes separate. If someone has raised a grievance, the person handling that grievance should not be the same person making decisions about their employment.

✓ If you’re going to use SOSR as a reason for dismissal, be sure that you can evidence it properly.

Why this matters more from January 2027

The unfair dismissal compensation cap is being removed from January 2027.

Right now there’s a statutory cap on how much a tribunal can award in most unfair dismissal cases, but that will disappear next year.

Cases like this one will become significantly more expensive.

Where an HR consultant can help

Dealing with a difficult employee situation right now? A client complaint, a performance concern or someone raising issues about a colleague or manager?

Definitely get proper advice before you act.

An experienced HR consultant can help you to work through the situation properly.

Get in touch if you’d like to talk something through. We’re happy to help.