Miss Cox claimed that the Council had not made a proper adjustment so as to allow her to work for them despite her disability. The Council asserted as a preliminary point that they were not a trade organisation within the sections, and so were not caught by the provisions. They appealed a finding against them.
Held: The Council was established under the Medical Acts as a regulatory body, setting professional standards so as to protect the public. The involvement in its procedures of the Privy Council confirmed that it operated as a public body, and not a trade organisation. The court should look to the predominant purpose of the organisation. ‘Is the GMC a trade organisation within the meaning of Section 13? In our judgment it is beyond argument that that at its inception the purpose for which this organisation existed was the protection of the public, and particularly those members of such that had to consult a medical practitioner. The preamble to the 1858 Act said as much and it would be surprising if Parliament of its own volition made an enactment for the purposes of the medical profession. Has the position since changed? We think not. The functions of the GMC are to be those assigned by the Medical Act 1983 (see Section 1(1)), which functions, as emerging from the ensuing sections, are in great substance directly or indirectly concerned with setting and attaining the professional standards that serve to protect the public. We readily accept Mr. Henshaw’s submission that the activities of the GMC serve to maintain the status and reputation of the medical profession and are thus of a benefit to it but that consideration cannot serve to displace the predominant purpose of public protection. Indeed if the medical profession, as such, does benefit from the GMC and its functioning it is arguably because this organisation does not exist for its ‘purpose’ but for the ‘purpose’ of the public, setting standards that are not compromised by self-interest.’
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Holland
Citations:
Times 16-Apr-2002, EAT/0076/01
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 13 68, Medical Act 1858, Medical Act 1983
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton EAT 2-Dec-2003
The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act.
Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not . .
Cited – 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton EAT 2-Dec-2003
The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act.
Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.168549