Vaidya v The General Medical Council

Section 12(1A) of the Race Relations Act 1976 does not import the specific acts in section 12(1)(a) to (c) directly into the harassment provision. The provision nevertheless requires three elements: an eligible authority or body; a person who holds or applies for the relevant authorisation or qualification; and harassment done in relation to that authorisation or qualification.

Under section 27A(2), harassment may arise after the underlying relationship has ended where the conduct is closely connected with that relationship. A claim remains subject to the requirement that the claimant is a protected person and that the conduct relates to the relevant authorisation or qualification. On the pleaded facts, the claim was correctly struck out.

Dr Vaidya appealed against the decision of the London Central Employment Tribunal, sitting at a pre-hearing review, which dismissed his claims against the General Medical Council. The appeal concerned only his complaint of racial harassment under section 12(1A) of the Race Relations Act 1976.

The complaint included alleged non-disclosure of case files relating to other doctors. The Employment Tribunal had construed section 12(1A) as confined to conduct falling within section 12(1)(a) to (c). The central issues were whether that construction was correct, whether Dr Vaidya was a protected person after his erasure from the medical register, and whether the pleaded conduct was sufficiently connected with the relevant authorisation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Judge was entitled to strike out the harassment complaint.
2. Section 12(1A) of the Race Relations Act 1976 does not directly incorporate the specific acts listed in section 12(1)(a), (b) and (c). The provision has three constituent elements: the potential harasser must be an authority or body within section 12(1); the claimant must hold or apply for the relevant authorisation or qualification; and the harassment must be done in relation to an authorisation or qualification conferred by that body.
3. Dr Vaidya had held the relevant authorisation while registered to practise medicine, but had been erased from the register. Under section 41(2) of the Medical Act 1983, he could not apply for restoration for five years. He therefore did not fall within section 12(1A) without more.
4. Section 27A(2) could nevertheless permit a harassment claim after the relationship between claimant and respondent had ended, where the alleged conduct was closely connected with that relationship. That did not assist the claimant because the alleged non-disclosure related to dates between 20 April 2004 and 16 December 2008, before an earlier Employment Tribunal determination in August 2009.
5. The later disclosure of the documents in April 2010 could not itself constitute harassment because it was compliance with the claimant’s request. The earlier complaints had been determined, or ought to have been brought, in the earlier proceedings. Applying the rule in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100, they could not be resurrected.
6. There was consequently no extant harassment claim relating to the GMC authorisation, or arising out of or closely connected with the former relationship.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal against the London Central Employment Tribunal’s judgment, promulgated with reasons on 12 October 2010.
2. London Central Employment Tribunal: dismissed the claimant’s claims at a pre-hearing review and struck out the harassment complaint.