Mrs A Abhyankar v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board — 2026

Mrs Abhyankar claimed victimisation under sections 27 and 39(4) of the Equality Act 2010. The alleged detriments were Professor Fegan's decision on 21 February 2024 to add Allegations 10 and 11 to the Terms of Reference for an internal Upholding Professional Standards in Wales investigation, and Mr Coulthard's decision on 31 May 2024 to retain parts of Allegation 10 and all of Allegation 11. The respondent accepted that both decisions amounted to detriments.

The Tribunal found that Mrs Abhyankar had performed protected acts by bringing her earlier Employment Tribunal proceedings and by giving evidence in those proceedings. It rejected any suggestion that those acts fell outside section 27 because they had been done in bad faith, noting that the respondent had not advanced such a case.

The Tribunal accepted Professor Fegan's evidence that he amended the Terms of Reference because findings in the earlier judgment raised conduct issues that he considered warranted investigation as potential breaches of the General Medical Council's Good Medical Practice standards. It found that he was not consciously or subconsciously biased by Mrs Abhyankar having brought or given evidence in the earlier proceedings. His decision concerned whether the matters should be investigated and did not determine that any professional standard had been breached.

The Tribunal found that Mr Coulthard independently reviewed the Terms of Reference, the earlier judgment and the relevant professional standards. After obtaining legal advice, he removed six sub-allegations from Allegation 10 but retained the remainder of Allegations 10 and 11 because he considered that findings in the judgment raised potentially relevant questions concerning honesty, integrity and the conduct of proceedings by a medical professional.

Applying the statutory causation test, the Tribunal held that the connection relied upon by Mrs Abhyankar was no more than a "but for" link. The real or core reason for the decisions was the content of the earlier judgment, rather than the fact that she had brought proceedings or given evidence. The victimisation claim was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.