Claimant v General Medical Council
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant alleged that the creation, maintenance and refusal to amend Annex A (a critical record on his GMC file) was victimisation due to his prior protected acts (raising discrimination complaints in 2011, bringing ET claims in 2012). Tribunal found this was fact-sensitive, requiring full hearing to determine motivation of decision-makers and whether maintenance of Annex A was victimisation or straightforward policy application. Strike-out application dismissed.
Claimant alleged that GMC's PCPs (publishing advice on record, failing to remove it, thereby putting BME doctors at disadvantage) indirectly discriminated against him as BME doctors more likely to be disciplined and disadvantaged by prejudicial information. Tribunal found claims fact-sensitive, requiring evidence from Respondent on whether maintaining Annex A was proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim. Strike-out application dismissed.
Facts
Dr Adams, a BME emergency medicine consultant, was dismissed by Kettering General Hospital in 2012 after raising concerns about racial bias and management. He brought ET claims in 2012 which settled. The GMC investigated him and in February 2013 published 'Annex A' on his register containing critical comments about his professional conduct based on information from KGH and his subsequent employer NLAG, which did not renew his contract. Annex A remained on his GMC record for over 10 years. In 2022, Dr Adams requested the GMC amend or remove Annex A, arguing it contained prejudicial material that prevented him obtaining long-term NHS employment. The GMC refused. He brought claims of victimisation and indirect race discrimination against the GMC.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the GMC's strike-out and deposit order applications. It found: (1) it had jurisdiction as no statutory appeal existed against the GMC's administrative decision to maintain Annex A; (2) the claims did not have no/little reasonable prospect of success as they were fact-sensitive, requiring full hearing of evidence on the GMC's decision-making, whether there was any discretion to amend records, and whether maintaining Annex A was victimisation or legitimate regulatory practice; (3) limitation issues also fact-sensitive and reserved for final hearing, though part of claim found to be in time from September 2022 onwards.
Practical note
Administrative decisions by professional regulators to maintain adverse information on practitioner records may be challengeable as discrimination even where the regulator has statutory duties, particularly where the decision-making processes, discretion available, and proportionality of maintaining such records require factual investigation that cannot be determined at preliminary hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3301580/2023
- Decision date
- 17 July 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- General Medical Council
- Sector
- regulator
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Consultant in Emergency Medicine
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister