Dr P Balfour v Change Grow Live — 2023

The preliminary hearing was listed to decide whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims and whether the philosophical belief stated by Dr P Balfour was protected under the Equality Act 2010. The pleaded belief was described as the equality of all human life, that society should move away from separatist dialogue, and that all people, irrespective of race, colour or creed, should be treated equally. The tribunal noted that the claimant had suggested he was really seeking to claim discrimination because of religion, but that was not the pleaded claim and no application to amend had been made.

The claim arose from comments made at a meeting on 9 December 2021 about Black Lives Matter. The claimant was already suspended from clinical practice, and his suspension was continued on 20 December 2021 after his comments led to a disciplinary investigation. He was given a final written warning on 12 December 2022. Early conciliation began on 8 March 2023, the certificate was issued on 19 April 2023, and the claim form was presented on 19 May 2023.

On time limits, the tribunal held that the suspension-related discrimination allegation was presented 17 months out of time. The claimant provided no witness statement and, when invited to explain why it would be just and equitable to extend time, said he could not give a reason. Taking account of his education, access to advice from the BMA, and the absence of reasons for the delay, the tribunal declined to extend time.

On the protected belief issue, the tribunal accepted that the claimant genuinely held the stated views and that the belief was not excluded by the fifth Grainger criterion. However, it found that the belief failed other parts of the Grainger test. The tribunal held that the belief was an opinion or viewpoint based on current understanding, that the belief as a whole did not relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life because key parts were unexplained, and that it lacked cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant did not hold a protected philosophical belief and dismissed the discrimination because of religion or philosophical belief claim. No remedy was awarded.