Case 4107734/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Dr A Razoq v Dumfries and Galloway Health Board — 2020
- Case reference
- 4107734/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr A Razoq
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a locum consultant physician engaged from 4 June to 5 October 2018, challenged a number of alleged discriminatory acts and a notice-pay claim. The most significant event was the second respondent's referral of the claimant to the General Medical Council on 18 October 2018, which was made after concerns about the claimant's conduct with junior doctors and pay demands. The claimant sent a pre-legal action notice on 24 October 2018, went through ACAS early conciliation in November 2018 and again in May 2019, and presented the ET1 on 16 July 2019.
Applying s.123 EqA 2010, Robertson, British Coal v Keeble, Caston, Morgan, Virdi and Mensah, the tribunal held that the alleged discriminatory acts tied to the end of the engagement on 5 October 2018 were out of time. It rejected a just and equitable extension for those matters because the claimant knew of the events at the time, had general awareness of tribunal time limits, and gave no sufficient reason for delaying the claim. Those allegations included the complaints about being required to defer to junior doctors, the asserted dismissal on 5 October 2018, and the alleged failure to follow NHS procedures.
For the GMC referral, the tribunal held that the act complained of was the referral itself on 18 October 2018, not the later GMC letter of 1 or 3 May 2019 setting out the referral concerns. It extended time on a just and equitable basis because the claimant reasonably believed the referral might be withdrawn after supportive internal emails, heard nothing from the GMC for months, and acted promptly once he learned that the referral was being pursued and what the stated concerns were. The direct discrimination complaint was therefore allowed to proceed only in relation to the GMC referral.
The tribunal also held that the indirect discrimination, harassment and EqA victimisation complaints were out of time or outside jurisdiction, and that the notice-pay breach of contract claim was out of time because it was reasonably practicable to present it earlier. The separate whistleblowing issue under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was reserved for a later preliminary hearing on amendment and case management.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint. The tribunal held that alleged acts ending on 5 October 2018 were out of time and refused a just and equitable extension, but it allowed the complaint to proceed only so far as it related to the 18 October 2018 GMC referral. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint. The judgment dealt with the race and religion or belief direct discrimination complaints together and did not isolate religion-specific facts, but the same time-bar ruling applied: the 5 October 2018 matters were out of time and only the GMC referral aspect survived for further hearing. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect discrimination complaint under s19 EqA. The tribunal held it was out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaint under s26 EqA. The tribunal held the alleged conduct was known by 5 October 2018, was out of time, and did not warrant an extension. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | EqA victimisation complaint under s27. The tribunal said the separate whistleblowing point was under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and would be dealt with later, but it did not accept jurisdiction for this EqA claim at the preliminary hearing. |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.123(1)(a) EqA 2010
- s.123(1)(b) EqA 2010
- just and equitable extension
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Virdi v Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis
- Mensah v Royal College of Midwives
- reasonably practicable test
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
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.