Case 2412080/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Armstrong v General Medical Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412080/2023
- Decision date
- 23 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a doctor, complained that he was persecuted for expressing religious beliefs about statins and Covid vaccinations, and that the GMC investigation restricted his practice and caused him to lose work. The respondent said it acted as a qualifications body under s54 Equality Act 2010 and denied discrimination.
The tribunal proceeded in the claimant's absence after finding that he had been sent notice and joining instructions and had not requested an adjournment. It held that the complaint concerned GMC fitness to practise proceedings, for which an appeal lay to the High Court, so the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction was excluded by s120(7) Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. It said the claimant had advanced no basis from which the tribunal could infer that the GMC's actions occurred because of religion or belief, and that the pleaded case amounted to a bare assertion of discrimination.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment describes the claim as direct religious discrimination arising from the GMC's decision to pursue fitness to practise proceedings. The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The claim was struck out under s120(7) Equality Act 2010 and/or Rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s120(7) Equality Act 2010
- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Royal Mail Group v Efobi
- Bahl v Law Society
- Chandhok v Tirkey
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.