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 acts complained of, was provided for by statute and came within the meaning of ‘appeal’ as explained by Hoffmann J in Khan v GMC.
At a Preliminary Hearing, the Employment Judge wrongly failed to recognise he was bound by the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a case which was directly in point (Jooste); and therefore permitted the proceedings to continue in part. Similarly, he permitted proceedings to continue against two named Respondents personally, when on the same principles as accepted in Jooste he should not have done. Thirdly, after the Notice of Appeal was served, he purported to be exercising the slip rule of his own motion when in fact he was setting out fresh relevant conclusions, as to which he should have heard submissions first.
On appeal, it was held that Jooste would be followed, though there were sufficient reasons to doubt that it was correct for permission to appeal to be given.
Judges:
Langstaff P J
Citations:
[2014] UKEAT 0213 – 14 – 2511
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 by:
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 . .
At EAT – 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.551971
