ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 8000164/2024 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Heard on the Cloud Based Video Platform on th of June 2024 at am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno M Benson v Icon plc — 2024

The tribunal found that the claimant had entered into a written contract of employment with Pharm Research Associates (UK) Limited (PRA) on 7 and 9 September 2021 and was paid by PRA throughout her employment from 9 September 2021 to 16 November 2023. Although ICON plc had acquired PRA before the claimant started and the business was increasingly branded as ICON, the tribunal held that the share purchase did not amount to a relevant TUPE transfer, the claimant’s contract was never transferred to ICON, and PRA remained her employer throughout.

On that basis, the tribunal substituted PRA for ICON plc as the respondent and directed that ICON be dismissed from the proceedings once PRA entered appearance. It rejected the claimant’s case that the practical branding and communications changes meant she had become an ICON employee, finding those matters were consistent with the ongoing post-acquisition transition and did not vary her written terms.

The tribunal also refused the claimant’s application for leave to amend to add a new harassment complaint related to religion based on an alleged incident on 22 and 23 March 2023. It found that this allegation was not included in the ET1 or the grievance attached to it, that the claimant had consciously decided not to raise it earlier, and that the proposed amendment was first brought forward on 10 May 2024, about 14 months after the incident. Applying the Selkent approach and the balance of injustice and hardship, with reference to Chaudhry, Vaughan, Abercrombie, Housing Corporation v Bryant, Evershed, and Chandhok, the tribunal held that the proposed new claim was out of time and refused the amendment.

The tribunal recorded that refusing the amendment would not prevent the claimant pursuing her existing complaints, including the constructive unfair dismissal and race harassment matters already pleaded. Those existing claims were left to proceed against PRA under the separate case management orders issued with the judgment.