Ms L Akester and the 126 further claimants set out in Schedule 1 v Burlington Care (Yorkshire) Limited and others and 4 others — 2023

This was a public preliminary hearing concerning applications about the claims against the Secretary of State, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Care Quality Commission and Mr Ian Trenholm. The claimants' ordinary unfair dismissal claims and indirect discrimination claims against their former employers were not determined and were ordered to continue.

The Tribunal held that the claims against the CQC and Mr Trenholm had not set out the essence of the case against them in the ET1s and riders. It also held that the First Respondents were exempt under paragraph 1 of Schedule 22 Equality Act 2010 from liability for acts done pursuant to the vaccination requirement in relation to disability and religion or belief, and that the Government and CQC Respondents could not be liable under sections 111 or 112 where the underlying acts were exempt.

The Tribunal found that "clinical reasons" in Regulation 12(3)(b) meant medical reasons and did not include refusal of consent based on personal concerns, religious belief or belief in bodily autonomy. It concluded that the operational and medical exemption guidance was non-binding guidance to assist registered persons and did not expand the meaning of the regulation.

For section 111 Equality Act 2010, the Tribunal held that the claimants had not identified a basic contravention which the Secretary of State, DHSC or CQC was in a position to commit against the employers. For section 112, it held that issuing non-binding guidance and carrying out monitoring functions did not amount to knowingly helping the alleged discrimination. The claims against the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents were struck out, and the claimants' applications to strike out or seek deposit orders against those respondents' responses were rejected.