Claimant v General Dental Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out on jurisdictional grounds. The claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent. The tribunal found no authority for the proposition that regulators are liable to whistleblowing detriment claims by regulatees, and that ET jurisdiction remains dependent on employee or worker status which the claimant did not have. The Gilham extension of protection was not applicable as the claimant's position was not analogous to an employee or worker of the respondent.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the victimisation claim and struck it out. The letters relied upon as protected acts did not contain express or implied references to disability or any protected characteristic. The claimant conceded the letters did not cause the investigation to begin or be conducted in the manner it was. The claim was wholly unparticularised, did not disclose a coherent cause of action, and had no reasonable prospect of success.
Facts
The claimant, a dentist, was dismissed by her employer Roxdent Limited in March 2023. Roxdent referred her to the General Dental Council (GDC) which began fitness to practice proceedings and imposed conditions on her practice. The claimant had previously brought unsuccessful claims against Roxdent including whistleblowing, relying on letters dated 20 February and 2 March 2023. She then brought claims against the GDC for whistleblowing detriment and victimisation, relying on the same letters as protected disclosures/protected acts. The respondent applied to strike out both claims.
Decision
The tribunal struck out both claims. The whistleblowing claim failed on jurisdictional grounds as the claimant was not an employee or worker of the GDC, and there is no authority extending such protection to the regulator-regulatee relationship. The victimisation claim was struck out as the letters did not constitute protected acts (no reference to protected characteristics), the claimant conceded they did not cause the alleged detriment, and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. A costs application against the claimant for submitting AI-generated non-existent case citations was refused.
Practical note
Employment tribunals have no jurisdiction over whistleblowing detriment claims against regulatory bodies by regulatees absent an employment or worker relationship, and the Gilham extension does not apply to such relationships.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6009997/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- General Dental Council
- Sector
- regulator
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Dentist
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No