Claimant v Respondent — 2026

Mrs K Hardy claimed against Roslin Cell Therapies Limited following the withdrawal on 21 August 2025 of an offer for the post of Chief People Officer. The Tribunal found that the verbal communications on or about 11 August did not settle all essential terms. Mrs Hardy's response to the written offer of 14 August rejected the proposed 1 September start date and proposed 6 October, so it was a qualified acceptance operating as a counter-offer and the original offer fell.

The respondent issued an updated offer on 20 August with the revised start date. It remained subject to successful completion of specified pre-employment checks to the respondent's satisfaction and contemplated a subsequent written contract signed by both parties. The Tribunal found the evidence insufficiently reliable to establish that Mrs Hardy accepted the updated offer through the prescribed mechanism. Independently, it found that the parties intended no binding employment contract to arise until the conditions had been fulfilled and the terms incorporated into a single contract signed by both parties.

Because no contract of employment existed when the offer was withdrawn, the Tribunal held that Mrs Hardy lacked title to present, and it lacked jurisdiction to consider, the breach of contract claim under section 3(2) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and Article 3(c) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994. The claims, including the asserted holiday pay entitlement, were dismissed and no monetary award was made.

The Tribunal separately found that the respondent withdrew the updated offer before the contingency restricting withdrawal had occurred and thereby breached its unilateral undertaking not to withdraw prematurely. It held that a damages claim on that basis could be pursued only in the Sheriff Court and that its finding was not enforceable in the Employment Tribunal. Its observations concerning four weeks' net pay and the vouched cost of one return journey from Morpeth to the Edinburgh area were non-binding; the travel loss had not been quantified, and no interest or other sum was awarded.