Case 2219596/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Brockington v Pharma& UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219596/2024
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Venue
- in person at the Central London Tribunal
- Panel members
- Mr R Pell, Mr S Hearn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Brockington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the claim in person at the Central London Tribunal on 2, 3 and 4 April 2025 before Employment Judge Woodhead, with Mr R Pell and Mr S Hearn as the lay members. It unanimously dismissed the complaint that the Respondent had failed to comply with the TUPE information and consultation duties under Regulation 13 or Regulation 13A. The Tribunal held that the Respondent could not be liable for that complaint because it was the transferee rather than the party with the obligation to inform and consult, and it could not be jointly and severally liable where the complaint had not been brought against the transferor. The Tribunal also found that the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to do so in time.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996, relating to protected disclosure. It recorded that the complaint was not well-founded. No monetary remedy was awarded and no compensation figures were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The complaint was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Respondent was not the party with the duty to inform and consult as transferee, and could not be jointly and severally liable because the complaint had not been brought against the transferor. The Tribunal also found the complaint was out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996, based on protected disclosure, was found not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.