EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Costs
The Employment Judge correctly struck out the Claimant’s claims as having no prospect, and being misconceived. At a rolled up rule 3(10) and all-parties preliminary hearing, the EAT held the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction on the Claimant’s claims against the regulator of care homes and the GMC. He had a remedy in judicial review and so was excluded by Equality Act 2010 s120(7).
Dr Jooste claimed that the acts of an ‘Interim Orders Panel’ of the GMC suspending his registration were discriminatory under the Equality Act. Judge McMullen, sitting in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal, that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints against the GMC as the remedy available in judicial review was an alternative statutory remedy under section 120(7). McMullen QC HHJ upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal, that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints against the GMC as the remedy available in judicial review was an alternative statutory remedy under section 120(7). At para 44 of his judgment he said that ‘an appeal simply is the opportunity to have a decision considered again by a different body of people with power to overturn it.’
Judges:
McMullen QC HHJ
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0093 – 12 – 0407
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Jooste v General Medical Council Admn 19-Oct-2010
. .
Cited by:
Dictum disapproved – 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
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.463767