Uruakpa, R (on the application of) v Ministry Of Agriculture, Food & Fisheries & Ors

Registration as a veterinary surgeon under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 requires more than an overseas qualification. The applicant must also satisfy the statutory requirements concerning knowledge and skill. A discretion to determine which foreign qualifications are acceptable does not create a discretion to recognise an individual applicant who does not meet section 6(3). A racial discrimination claim based on action taken under that statutory scheme may be struck out when it is bound to fail because of the section 41 defence in the Race Relations Act 1976. Unequal legal representation alone does not deny a fair hearing before an employment tribunal. Permission to appeal was refused in both applications.

Dr Uruakpa brought two applications. In the first, she sought permission to appeal from the refusal by Stanley Burnton J on 19 June 2001 of permission to challenge by judicial review MAFF’s refusal to employ her as a temporary veterinary inspector during the foot and mouth epidemic.

In the second, she sought permission to appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s dismissal of her appeal against an Employment Tribunal decision striking out her racial discrimination claim against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The central issues were whether the College had discretion to recognise her qualifications without examination, whether the discrimination claim was properly struck out, whether the hearing was fair despite her lack of legal representation, and whether MAFF had lawfully relied on the information in her application.

1. Disposition. Both applications were refused. The applicant had no real prospect of successfully appealing either decision.
2. Registration requirements. Section 6(1) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 requires the statutory conditions to be satisfied, including an overseas qualification and satisfaction that the applicant has the requisite knowledge and skill. Under section 6(2), examination is ordinarily required. Section 6(3) provides the exception where the qualification has been accepted by the Council as satisfactory proof in itself.
3. Discrimination claim. The College’s discretion to decide which foreign universities or qualifications are generally acceptable did not extend to treating this applicant as having the requisite qualification for the purposes of section 6(3). The College was therefore acting under section 6. The statutory defence in section 41 of the Race Relations Act 1976 applied, so the discrimination claim was bound to fail.
4. The Employment Tribunal could strike out a claim which it had decided was bound to fail. Whether the Chairman described the claim as frivolous or as an abuse of process was immaterial.
5. Fair hearing. The informality of employment tribunal proceedings is intended to facilitate representation by individuals. The fact that one party has experienced legal representation does not itself deny equality of arms or a fair hearing. The Chairman’s duty to assist an unrepresented party provided sufficient balance in the circumstances.
6. Judicial review. MAFF was entitled to rely on the applicant’s completed application form, which left the current-employer section blank and described her veterinary employment as ending in October 2000. A later letter lent some support to the existence of continuing employment or study leave, but showed that she had not worked as a vet in Nigeria since 1997. The decision not to offer employment was based on information supplied by the applicant and disclosed no arguable public law error.
7. Complaints about the conduct of the Employment Tribunal which had not been included in the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s grant of leave could not properly form the basis of an appeal confined to a point of law.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused both applications on 19 November 2001.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal from the Employment Tribunal’s strike-out of the racial discrimination claim on 18 October 2001.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Stanley Burnton J refused permission to challenge MAFF’s decision by judicial review on 19 June 2001.
• Employment Tribunal: struck out the racial discrimination claim as bound to fail.