Ms D Clarke v General Medical Council — 2025

By a liability judgment dated 1 November 2024, the Tribunal found that Ms Clarke's complaints of discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unfair dismissal were well-founded. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint of direct disability discrimination. It also found that Ms Clarke's refusal to accept the offered alternative Policy Administrator role in the Policy team was unreasonable.

The respondent applied for the mitigation issue to be determined before the remedy hearing. Employment Judge Klimov held that, in light of the earlier finding that Ms Clarke's refusal of the alternative role was unreasonable and the reconsideration decision's findings on that issue, the inevitable conclusion was that she had failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate her loss.

The Tribunal rejected Ms Clarke's attempt to reopen whether her refusal of the Policy Administrator role was reasonable, holding that the issue was res judicata and would not be reopened at the remedy hearing. The Tribunal accepted the legal principle, drawn from Fyfe v Scientific Furnishings and Wilding v British Telecommunications Plc, that a claimant cannot recover damages for loss that could have been avoided by taking reasonable steps.

The Tribunal found that, had Ms Clarke accepted the Policy Administrator role, she would have remained employed by the respondent on the same salary and benefits and would not have suffered financial loss arising from dismissal. It therefore ordered that any compensatory award due to her be reduced by 100%. No monetary award was fixed in this judgment, and the parties were directed to confirm whether the remedy hearing was still required.