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 her favour. The GMC now said that the availability of judicial review excluded her right to commence proceedings before the Employment Tribunal by virtue of section 120 of the 2010 Act.
Held: The GMC’s appeal failed. Judicial review in the context of the present case is not in the nature of an appeal. Nor is it a remedy provided by reason of an enactment.
Judges:
Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore;, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes JJSC
Citations:
[2017] UKSC 71, [2017] 1 WLR 4193, (2018) 159 BMLR 1, [2018] 1 All ER 463, [2018] ICR 49, [2018] IRLR 60, [2017] WLR(D) 734, UKSC 2016/0084
Links:
Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 07 04 am Video, SC 2017 07 04 pm Video, Bailii Summary
Statutes:
Equality Act 2010 120(7), Senior Courts Act 1981 31(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
At EAT – The General Medical Council v Dickson, Haywood, Dr Michalak EAT 25-Nov-2014
The Claimant complained to an Employment Tribunal that she had been discriminated against by the GMC (a qualifications body). The GMC contended that section 120(7) Equality Act precluded jurisdiction, since judicial review afforded an appeal for the . .
See Also – Michalak, Regina (on The Application of) v General Medical Council Admn 22-Jul-2011
Dr M sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent to continue its investigation of her by the Fitness to Practice panel. That panel, after hearing substantial evidence had to restart on the panel medical member was unable to continue with . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Cited – Pham v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether the Secretary of State was precluded under the British Nationality Act 1981 from making an order depriving the appellant of British citizenship because to do so would render him stateless. This turns on whether (within . .
Cited – Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another SC 25-Nov-2015
The Court was asked whether the respondents should be required to hold a public inquiry into a controversial series of events in 1948, when a Scots Guards patrol was alleged to shot and killed 24 unarmed civilians in a village called Batang Kali, in . .
Appeal from – Michalak v The General Medical Council and Others CA 23-Mar-2016
The court considered the remedies and routes of appeal available to individuals who claim to have suffered from discrimination, victimisation, harassment or detriment in the treatment that they have received from a qualifications body. In . .
Cited – Khan v General Medical Council CA 11-Apr-1994
The appellant’s application for full registration as a qualified medical practitioner had been refused by the GMC after a five-year maximum period of limited registration. His application for full registration in accordance with section 25 of the . .
Cited – Tariquez-Zaman v General Medical Council EAT 20-Dec-2006
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 . .
Dictum disapproved – Jooste v General Medical Council and Others EAT 4-Jul-2012
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 . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council v The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson CA 18-Dec-2002
The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: . .
Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd HL 16-May-2007
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited by:
Cited – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions, Judicial Review
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.598455
