Mr Varnam, Counsel. For the v Respondent — 2024

This was a public preliminary hearing in which Dr Anthony Adams brought victimisation and indirect race discrimination claims against the General Medical Council about Annex A, a record created in February 2013 that contained comments about his dismissal from Kettering General Hospital and comments from his later employer. He said the maintenance of that material on his GMC record, and the refusal to amend it in September 2022, were discriminatory and retaliatory, and he relied on protected acts including complaints made in 2011 and an employment tribunal claim issued in 2012.

The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's jurisdiction argument under s.120(7) EqA. It held that the opportunity to comment in 2013 was not a statutory appeal or proceedings in the nature of an appeal, and that a complaint to the ICO about rectification would be concerned with accuracy of data rather than a review of whether the maintenance of Annex A itself was discriminatory or victimising. The Tribunal found that those routes would not provide an equivalent means of redress of the kind discussed in GMC v Michalak.

Applying the strike out authorities, including Rule 37(1)(a), Cox v Adecco, Balls v Downham Market, Anyanwu and Ezsias, the Tribunal held that the claims could not be struck out at this stage. It found the issues were fact-sensitive, that the Respondent's policies and decision-making needed to be heard in evidence, and that it could not conclude the claims had no reasonable prospects of success without hearing from the Respondent's witnesses. It also held that at least part of the maintenance complaint was in time from 2 September 2022, and that whether the earlier period amounted to a continuing act was a matter for the final hearing.

The Tribunal also refused a deposit order under Rule 39. It accepted the Claimant could pay a £1,000 deposit on each claim but held the claims did not have only little reasonable prospect of success. The decision emphasised that the proportionality and legitimate aim issues, and the limitation issues, were evidence-sensitive. The judgment therefore ended with both the strike out application and the deposit order application dismissed, but with no final determination of liability.