Medical Protection Society & Ors v Sadek

For the purposes of section 11(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976, the residual category of ‘any other organisation’ is mutually exclusive from organisations of workers and organisations of employers. The court must therefore determine whether an organisation falls within either of those categories before considering the residual category. Professionals may also be workers. The statutory definition of profession is broad and includes any vocation or occupation; the Act contains no exclusion for professional-client relationships. An organisation may include members of more than one profession and still fall within the residual category if its purposes enable or assist members to carry on their professions. The MPS was an organisation of workers.

Dr Sadek, a member of the Medical Protection Society, brought Employment Tribunal proceedings alleging race discrimination and victimisation arising from the MPS’s advice and assistance concerning disciplinary and proposed employment proceedings.

The Employment Tribunal held that the MPS was both an organisation of workers and a professional organisation within section 11(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the MPS’s appeal, relying on the third category without deciding the first. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the MPS fell within either statutory category.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Maurice Kay delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Latham and the President of the Family Division agreeing. The order included costs subject to detailed assessment, provision for the respondent’s expenses, and refusal of permission to appeal.

1. Section 11(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 contains three categories of organisation. The words ‘any other organisation’ make the third category residual. An organisation cannot fall within the third category while also falling within the first or second category. The Employment Tribunal therefore erred in finding that the MPS fell within both the first and third categories, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in deciding the third category without first excluding the first.
2. The MPS fell within the first category as an organisation of workers. The Act contains no specific definition of worker, while section 78(1) defines profession broadly to include any vocation or occupation. Professional status does not prevent a person from being a worker. Medical and dental practitioners may work under contracts of employment or as independent contractors, and in either case may carry out employment within the statutory meaning.
3. The provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1896, which expressly exclude professional-client relationships from their definitions, reinforced rather than contradicted that conclusion. The registration of the British Medical Association and British Dental Association as independent trade unions illustrated the modern position, but did not determine the MPS’s classification.
4. The court considered the third category in case the first conclusion was wrong. ‘A particular profession’ does not restrict an organisation to members of one profession. The relevant purpose is enabling or assisting members to carry on their professions. This excludes bodies formed for sporting or cultural purposes, but the MPS’s advice, representation and indemnity functions would have placed it within the category.
5. The availability of a remedy under Part III of the Race Relations Act 1976, in the designated County Courts, did not justify a narrower construction of section 11(1). The MPS accordingly fell within the first category, and the appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division), [2004] EWCA Civ 865: dismissed the MPS’s appeal and held that it was an organisation of workers.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal, EAT/0594/03/LA: dismissed the MPS’s appeal, holding that it fell within the third category in section 11(1), but expressing no view on the first category.
3. Employment Tribunal: held that the MPS fell within both the first and third categories and directed a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction.