Case 8000164/2024 · Employment Tribunal
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
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.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Proposed section 26 Equality Act 2010 harassment allegation related to religion; the tribunal refused leave to amend and did not determine the merits of the allegation. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
The 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.
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.