Umut Baz v General Dental Council — 2020

At the open preliminary hearing on 26 February 2020 before Employment Judge H Clark, sitting alone, the Tribunal considered the Respondent's application to strike out the Claimant's sexual orientation discrimination claims or, alternatively, to order a deposit. The Claimant did not attend and had not provided a witness statement, documents, or written submissions. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had uploaded the bundle to a secure share site and that the Claimant had accessed at least some of the material.

The Tribunal addressed nine allegations grouped around two regulatory complaints: the Claimant's complaint about a dental hygienist and a complaint made against the Claimant by a dentist. It accepted the Respondent's documentary explanation that the Claimant had in fact been contacted on several occasions, that witness evidence had been sought from supporting witnesses, and that the long duration of the complaints process was explained by contemporaneous matters including a police investigation, public interest considerations, and case-examiner review. It also found that the allegation that the Respondent had never contacted the Claimant to obtain her account was demonstrably inaccurate.

Applying rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, and referring to Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union and Ahir v British Airways Plc, the Tribunal held that the Claimant had not identified any evidence from which it could infer that the Respondent's conduct was because of her sexual orientation. It found that the Respondent had provided cogent non-discriminatory explanations for the actions complained of and that the Claimant had advanced no positive case beyond a bald assertion. The Tribunal therefore struck out the sexual orientation discrimination claims as having no reasonable prospects of success.