EAT Race Discrimination – Discrimination by other bodies
Practice and Procedure – Amendment
(a) The Employment Tribunal correctly held it had no jurisdiction to hear Claimant’s case brought under the Race Relations Act 1976 s12 against the General Medical Council as a qualifying body.
(b) If it did, and if it were necessary to decide the point, the claim would be excluded by s54 as there is an alternative ‘appeal’ mechanism.
(c) The Claimant was permitted to amend his claim to add a claim of harassment if he could provide particulars. He did so in a form which satisfied a regional Chairman. There is no error and the General Medical Council’s appeal was dismissed.
Judge McMullen dealt with the argument that judicial review was in the nature of an appeal in these terms: ‘judicial review is aptly described as proceedings in the nature of an appeal. Judges in the administrative court are familiar with dealing with cases under the Medical Act in the form of appeals proper; thus, they constitute the obvious destination intended by Parliament for disputes of this nature, once a decision had been made at first instance. So, if I were required to make a decision, I would uphold the submission that section 54(2) ousts the jurisdiction of the ET because, in this case, proceedings can be brought by way of judicial review.’
Judges:
His Honour Judge McMullen QcC
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0292 – 06 – 2012, UKEAT/0517/06, UKEAT/0292/06
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Cited by:
See also – Tariquez-Zaman v London Deanery of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education EAT 14-Feb-2008
EAT Race Discrimination – Other losses
Victimisation Discrimination
Victimisation – remedies hearing – inconsistent findings of fact in critical paragraph of Tribunal’s decision – cross-appeal allowed . .
Cited – Michalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.248315