Performance Improvement Plans at Tribunal: What 469 Judgments Reveal
Among 469 Employment Tribunal cases whose judgments contain "performance improvement plan", 278 involved an actual claimant PIP, 68 a proposed or contemplated PIP, and 66 expressly recorded no PIP. Across the judgments, the recurring themes were the evidence behind the concern, clarity of expectations, a real opportunity to improve, support, and whether the process remained open to improvement.
Yerty reviewed 469 Employment Tribunal cases whose judgments contain the phrase "performance improvement plan". 278 of those cases (59%) involved a claimant who was actually placed on a PIP or performance-improvement process. In 68 (15%) a PIP was proposed or contemplated but not clearly implemented. In 66 (14%) the judgment expressly recorded that no PIP had been used. The remaining 57 (12%) referred to a policy, another employee's plan, or were unclear.
Across the judgments, the same factual questions recur regardless of which of those categories a case fell into: what the performance concern was based on, whether the employee understood what needed to change, whether there was a genuine chance to demonstrate improvement, what support was provided, and whether improvement could realistically have changed the outcome. The PIP label itself rarely decided anything.
This analysis comes from the same published tribunal record that underpins Yerty's wider research. Explore Yerty Intelligence Hub to search tribunal decisions and trace findings back to the source judgments.
Summary of findings
| # | Finding | Illustrative cases |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A PIP can be a genuine improvement process that closes after performance improves | Singh, Uddin, Saleh, Maycock |
| 2 | A written PIP does not by itself make a later dismissal fair | Hoggins, Isherwood |
| 3 | The basis of targets and the reality of support become central evidence | Sabourin, Begum, Mughal |
| 4 | "Managed out" allegations succeed only where the record shows predetermination | Partridge (rejected), Roche (upheld) |
| 5 | The absence of a formal PIP does not answer whether a dismissal was fair | Normile, Plaut |
| 6 | A proposed PIP that never happened can still be relevant evidence | 68 cases |
| 7 | Disability can change what performance management requires | X v Open GI, Phillips |
How "performance improvement plan" appeared in the 469 cases
| How the phrase appeared | Cases | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Claimant clearly subjected to a PIP / performance-improvement process | 278 | 59.3% |
| PIP proposed or contemplated but not clearly implemented | 68 | 14.5% |
| Judgment expressly records no PIP being used | 66 | 14.1% |
| Policy/general reference, another employee's PIP or unclear | 57 | 12.2% |
| Total | 469 | 100% |
Four in ten cases whose judgment mentions a PIP did not involve the claimant actually being placed on one. A PIP is also not a cause of action: it appears inside unfair dismissal, discrimination, whistleblowing and other claims without being the legal wrong itself.
Finding 1: A PIP can be a genuine improvement process
The published judgments do not support treating "PIP means the employer has already decided to dismiss" as a general rule.
In Singh v Lloyds Bank plc, the claimant moved onto an informal PIP with weekly meetings. The judgment describes the manager as professional and supportive and says the plan closed after 12 weeks because performance had improved sufficiently.
In Uddin v NSL Ltd, the claimant successfully completed the PIP. Saleh v Singletrack Systems Ltd likewise records improved performance after the claimant returned from furlough. The later appeal, Saleh v Singletrack Systems Ltd [2026] EAT 104, was dismissed on all three grounds. The EAT judgment records the ET's finding that the employer had genuine performance concerns and sought to manage them in a supportive, effective, reasonable and considered way.
In Maycock v Sky In-Home Services Ltd, the plan involved shadowing a colleague with strong sales and reporting sales to the manager daily. The tribunal recorded that sales improved quickly and the claimant was removed from the plan after two weeks.
The question these cases raise is whether a process is capable of ending in improvement: whether reviews are used to help the employee improve and whether progress can change the employer's assessment. For someone currently on a plan, Yerty's PIP rights guide covers those practical questions.
Finding 2: A PIP document does not make the process fair
Hoggins v Recruitment Solutions (Services) Ltd is the sharpest example. The claimant and employer agreed a five-week performance improvement plan in writing. The employer decided to terminate employment nine days later. The judgment also records no advance warning of the dismissal meeting and no appeal. The tribunal referred to established capability principles requiring proper appraisal of the problem, warning about the consequences of failing to improve and a reasonable chance to improve.
In Isherwood v People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, a PIP was set aside after a grievance because the document was not considered fit for purpose, even though genuine performance or behaviour concerns remained.
A process can have the right headings and still fail to provide the opportunity it appears to promise. The existence of a PIP is evidence that a performance-management step occurred, not the legal test.
Finding 3: Targets and support become central evidence
Acas's June 2026 guidance says a PIP should set out specific objectives, a reasonable timeline and further support or training. The same three elements recur in the judgments.
In Sabourin v BT Group plc, the tribunal accepted goals as realistic, achievable and measurable even though they were not perfectly SMART. The EAT later remitted a separate issue about the fairness of the eventual dismissal, because the ET had not addressed a material argument about the dismissal-stage assessment; that appeal did not disturb the first-instance finding about the PIP goals. In Begum v Lloyd's Pharmacy Ltd, the tribunal accepted that the PIP was intended as a supportive measure.
The contrast is Mughal v Omnia Life Style Ltd. The plan included a monthly turnover target of £2,500. The tribunal recorded uncertainty about what had been explained and what support was available, and the data showed no therapist had reached £2,500 in the period under consideration.
"Specific" is not the same as "reasonable", and "measurable" is not the same as "supported by evidence". The basis of a target, the resources available and the review process carried as much weight in these judgments as the number on the form.
Finding 4: "Managed out" allegations and actual predetermination are different things
In Partridge v Unilever UK Ltd, the claimant argued that the PIP was part of a plan to manage him out. The tribunal found no evidence beyond the assertions and rejected the inference.
The findings in Roche v University of Southampton were very different. The tribunal concluded that paperwork was being used to justify termination, that dismissal had become a foregone conclusion and that the process was a sham. It also found the appeal was tainted.
The evidence that separated the two was internal communications, how progress was handled, unexplained target changes, whether the process was allowed to run and whether genuine improvement could have changed the decision.
Finding 5: No formal PIP does not answer whether a dismissal was fair
The 66 cases that expressly record no PIP show why the label is not the legal test.
Normile v Let's Go Green Cabs Ltd was a constructive unfair dismissal case rather than a conventional capability dismissal. Its judgment contains an account of the employer's performance management: no formal PIP, no clear targets or improvement goals and no warning about what would happen if performance did not improve.
Plaut v Exeter University concerned a conduct dismissal. On those facts the tribunal concluded that a fair route to dismissal would first have required a performance-improvement process and an opportunity to change.
Neither judgment creates a requirement to use a PIP; Acas itself describes a PIP as something an employer could consider if informal steps fail. The distinction the judgments draw is between no formal PIP and no meaningful performance-management opportunity. Yerty's guide Can You Be Dismissed for Poor Performance Without a PIP? deals with that situation.
Finding 6: A proposed PIP can matter even when it never happens
In 68 of the 469 cases, a PIP was proposed, discussed or contemplated but not clearly implemented. The judgments include examples where a plan was drafted but another process intervened, where management moved towards disciplinary action instead, and where a witness later said that a PIP should have been considered.
A proposed PIP does not create a legal right to receive one. Its significance in these cases depended on the chronology and the later decision: it was evidence about the options the employer was considering, not proof that the eventual dismissal or disciplinary action was unlawful.
Finding 7: Disability can change what performance management requires
A count of disability claim tags would mislead, because a judgment can contain a disability-discrimination claim unconnected to the PIP. The cases below are those where the connection is explicit.
In X v Open GI Ltd, a complaint of discrimination arising from disability succeeded in relation to a PIP concerning work-completion time.
In Phillips v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd, the judgment describes additional support and adjustments being discussed and the performance plan being extended because of illness. The claimant's disability-discrimination claims ultimately failed; the case is used here as an example of support, adjustments and an illness-related extension being considered during performance management.
Acas says employers managing a disabled employee's performance should discuss current performance, expectations, support and reasonable adjustments, and keep an open mind about how the work can be done.
Recurring themes
The judgments do not create a new legal test, but five factual themes recur strongly enough across the categories above to be useful when reading performance-management disputes:
- Evidence: what the concern was based on.
- Clarity: whether the employee understood what needed to change.
- Opportunity: whether there was a genuine chance to demonstrate improvement.
- Support: what training, resources, feedback or adjustments were provided or considered.
- Open-minded decision-making: whether improvement could genuinely have changed the outcome.
These align closely with current Acas guidance and are not a statutory five-part checklist.
Method
This analysis was produced with Yerty Intelligence Hub. It was used to identify every published Employment Tribunal case in England, Wales and Scotland whose judgment refers to a performance improvement plan, to bring those cases together at case level with one judgment per case, and to read them for how the plan featured in each dispute. The data was taken as at 16 September 2026. Each case was grouped by whether the claimant was actually placed on a PIP, a PIP was proposed but not implemented, the judgment recorded that no PIP was used, or the reference was general. Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions are not part of the 469-case set; where a named case has later appellate history, it was checked separately.
The dataset is drawn from published litigation. It does not include disputes that never reached a published judgment, so it cannot estimate how often PIPs are used in workplaces generally or how often they lead to dismissal.
For the legal framework around dismissal, see Yerty's unfair dismissal guide.
Get Yerty Employment Tribunal Intelligence
Yerty structures published Employment Tribunal decisions so patterns can be investigated across the record rather than guessed from individual anecdotes. Explore Yerty Intelligence Hub and request access for case research, tribunal patterns and source-linked findings.
If this is happening to you personally, the Yerty Claimant Hub gives you a structured route through a workplace dispute, including a free Workplace Assessment and guided stages.
Frequently asked questions
Does a PIP always mean an employer has decided to dismiss you?
No. Yerty's reviewed cases include employees who successfully completed PIPs and had the process closed. Other cases contain evidence of predetermination. The existence of a PIP alone does not establish which situation applies; the surrounding evidence and the employer's actual handling of improvement matter.
Can employees successfully complete a PIP?
Yes. Published judgments in Yerty's review include successful completion in cases such as Singh, Uddin and Saleh. Because the dataset consists of disputes that later reached tribunal judgments, it cannot be used to calculate the general percentage of workplace PIPs that succeed.
Does having a PIP make a later dismissal fair?
No. A tribunal can still examine whether the performance concern was evidenced, whether expectations were clear, whether the employee had a genuine chance to improve, what support was provided and whether the employer followed a fair procedure. Hoggins is an example of a written plan being followed by a dismissal decision nine days later.
Does an employer have to use a PIP before dismissing for poor performance?
Not necessarily. Acas describes a PIP as something an employer could consider if informal steps do not work. An employer may use another capability process. Where ordinary unfair dismissal protection applies, the overall fairness of the process matters more than whether the document was labelled "PIP".
What do tribunals look at in performance-management disputes?
There is no separate legal test for a PIP. In the judgments Yerty reviewed, recurring factual themes include the evidence behind the concern, clarity of expectations, time and support to improve, warnings, disability or adjustment issues where relevant, and whether the employer remained open to improvement.
Can a PIP be discriminatory?
Potentially, depending on the facts. A PIP can become part of a discrimination claim if, for example, disability-related performance is managed without appropriate consideration of the Equality Act. In X v Open GI Ltd, a section 15 disability-discrimination complaint succeeded in relation to a PIP concerning work-completion time.
What does it mean if an employer considered a PIP but never used one?
It depends on what happened next. In 68 cases in Yerty's reviewed set, a PIP was proposed or contemplated but not clearly implemented. That may help explain the employer's decision-making, but it does not itself prove that the employer was legally required to use the proposed plan.
Can tribunal cases tell you how likely you are to pass a PIP?
No. Published tribunal judgments are a selected litigation population. Employees who complete a PIP and never have a later tribunal dispute are largely invisible in this dataset. The cases can show how processes were handled and criticised, but they cannot provide an individual "success probability".
Sources
Research methodology and official guidance
- Yerty Intelligence Hub analysis of 469 Employment Tribunal cases whose judgments contain "performance improvement plan", one judgment per case, as at 16 September 2026.
- Employment tribunal decisions, GOV.UK, published Employment Tribunal decisions for England, Wales and Scotland.
- Problems with an employee's performance, Acas, updated 23 June 2026.
- Dismissals for capability or conduct, Acas.
- Capability and performance when someone is disabled, Acas.
- Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, Acas.
- Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98, legislation.gov.uk.
Tribunal and appeal judgments cited
- Mr D Singh v Lloyds Bank plc: 4104852/2022, Employment Tribunal.
- Mr A Uddin v NSL Ltd: 2201825/2023, Employment Tribunal.
- Mr E Saleh v Singletrack Systems Ltd: 3205956/2021, Employment Tribunal.
- Mr E Saleh v Singletrack Systems Ltd: [2026] EAT 104, Employment Appeal Tribunal.
- Mr C Maycock v Sky In-Home Services Ltd: 2305577/2019, Employment Tribunal.
- Mr A Hoggins v Recruitment Solutions (Services) Ltd: 3300172/2017, Employment Tribunal.
- R Isherwood v The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals: 1600128/2019, Employment Tribunal.
- Mr P Sabourin v BT Group plc: 3201387/2023, Employment Tribunal.
- Mr Peter Sabourin v BT Group Plc: [2025] EAT 171, Employment Appeal Tribunal.
- Ms A Begum v Lloyd's Pharmacy Ltd and others: 1303426/2022, Employment Tribunal.
- Mr K Mughal v Omnia Life Style Ltd and Mr F Mirandha: 3302333/2023, Employment Tribunal.
- Mr N Partridge v Unilever UK Ltd: 2416038/2020, Employment Tribunal.
- Dr J Roche v University of Southampton: 1404304/2021, Employment Tribunal.
- Mr G Normile v Let's Go Green Cabs Ltd: 2303039/2023, Employment Tribunal.
- Dr A Plaut v Exeter University: 1400362/2020 and 1403179/2020, Employment Tribunal.
- X v Open GI Ltd: 3312044/2022 and 3311178/2022, Employment Tribunal.
- Mr J R Phillips v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd: 2501862/2024, Employment Tribunal.
How to cite this
Yerty (2026). Performance Improvement Plans at Tribunal: What 469 Judgments Reveal. Yerty Intelligence Hub. https://yerty.co.uk/tribunal-data/findings/pip-performance-management-tribunal-analysis (last updated October 2026).Figures reflect the analytical subset used for this question; see our methodology for corpus coverage. Free to cite for non-commercial use with attribution to Yerty. For commercial use, bulk or API access, or AI training, see our Data Use & Citation policy.
Figures derived from Employment Tribunal decisions published by HM Courts & Tribunals Service on GOV.UK, licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Analysis © Yerty. Re-use is subject to our Data Use & Citation policy.