Obi v General Medical Council [2010] NIFET 00098

FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REFS: 98/09 FET

4126/09

CLAIMANT: Joseph Obi

RESPONDENT: General Medical Council

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

1. The decision of the Tribunal, having determined various preliminary issues listed for its consideration, is that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claims in respect of discrimination on the grounds of religious belief and/or political opinion, age, disability and race:-

(i) All the claims were not presented within the specified time-limits, and it is not just and equitable, in all the circumstances of the case, for the Tribunal to consider any of the claims despite the fact that they are out of time.

(ii) In respect of the claim of age discrimination, the alleged acts took place before the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 came into force.

(iii) Furthermore, the alleged acts of discrimination were ones in which an appeal, or proceedings in the nature of an appeal, could be brought to a court under the relevant statutory provisions.

(iv) The bringing of these proceedings constitutes an abuse of process.

2. The Tribunal is satisfied that the claimant has acted unreasonably in bringing these proceedings, and that his actions in bringing them are misconceived. It therefore orders that he do pay the sum of £2,500, together with VAT thereon, to the respondent in respect of costs incurred by the latter.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone): Mr D Buchanan

Appearances:

The claimant, Dr Obi, did not appear, nor was he represented at the hearing. He provided written submissions in advance of the hearing.

The respondent was represented by Mr D Dunlop, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Cleaver Fulton Rankin, Solicitors.

1.	(i)	The claimant, Dr Obi, a medical doctor, by claim forms dated 15 December 2008, but presented to the Tribunal on 5 March 2009, brought claims against the respondent General Medical Council, alleging unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, religious belief and political opinion, and race. He had brought other claims alleging breach of contract, unfair dismissal, and breaches of the Working Time Regulations and the Regulations relating to less favourable treatment of part-time workers. These latter claims had, however, been rejected under the acceptance procedures set out in Rule 3 of Schedule 1 of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005.

	(ii)	Dr Obi is claiming the sum of £250 million pounds by way of compensation. This is a revised amount. Initially, he had indicated that he was claiming £100 million but it would appear that, on reflection, he considered this latter amount too modest.

	(iii)	Following receipt of the respondent’s response and correspondence from Dr Obi and the solicitors for the respondent, the Vice President of the Tribunals gave a direction on 16 July 2009 that the matter should be listed for a pre-hearing review to determine the following issues:-

(a) Whether the bringing of these proceedings in Northern Ireland is an abuse of process.

(b) Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the claim for religious/political opinion in view of the fact that the respondent contends none of the matters alleged occurred ‘at an establishment’ in Northern Ireland.

(c) Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the claim for age discrimination in view of the fact that the respondent contends that the alleged acts predate the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 coming into force.

(d) Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the claim for religious/political discrimination relating to the Professional Conduct Committee’s decision to suspend him from medical practice in the light of Article 38(2) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

(e) Whether the claim is within time and, if not, whether it is just and equitable to extend the time.

At the hearing, Mr Dunlop BL, for the respondent, rightly in my view, did not seek to rely on issue (b) above.

2.	(i)	The claimant did not attend the pre-hearing review. He had indicated previously in relation to the proceedings generally that he considered that his claim form and associated correspondence were self-explanatory “should any of the (Non-corrupt) Tribunal Vice Presidents ethically wish to proceed in absentia”. On 3 December 2009, in advance of the date fixed for the pre-hearing review, he wrote to the Office of the Tribunals stating that he was “Temporarily Leaving Belfast in (Lawful) Protest at your Litany of Horrific Actions (so far)”. He provided a written submission for the pre-hearing review, which was copied to the respondent’s solicitors. In correspondence accompanying this submission he stated that he did “not wish to painfully experience yet another judicial hatchet job”. Previously he had stated that “rumours were rife that the GMC had induced a bunch of judges in Belfast to swiftly quash all of [his] claims ‘on sight’”.

	(ii)	In order to determine this matter I therefore had regard to Dr Obi’s claim forms, the correspondence and written submission from him, the oral submissions by Mr Dunlop BL on behalf of the respondent, and the documentary evidence adduced on its behalf. I find the facts set out in the following paragraphs.

3.	(i)	The claimant, Dr Obi, is a medical doctor who held limited registration with the General Medical Council. (This form of registration was abolished in October 2007.) He had obtained a degree in medicine in Nigeria in 1991, and in accordance with the procedures for recognition of doctors with overseas qualifications, was granted limited registration under the provisions of Section 22 of the Medical Act 1983 with effect from 4 February 1998. Limited registration enabled an overseas doctor to work under supervision in the United Kingdom for a maximum aggregated period of five years.

	(ii)	Unfortunately, the GMC received a number of complaints about Dr Obi. These alleged serious professional misconduct on his part. On 9 January 2003 the Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC found these allegations proved, and suspended his name from the medical register for a period of 12 months, or the expiry of his limited registration, if earlier. (Dr Obi’s limited registration in fact expired on 3 February 2003.) Since that time he has not held any kind of registration with the GMC.

	(iii)	Section 40(1)(a) of the Medical Act 1983 provides that where a person has been suspended from the medical register by the GMC, he may appeal to the appropriate court in the part of the United Kingdom where his address is on the register. In the case of Dr Obi at the relevant time, that court would have been the High Court of Justice in England and Wales.

	(iv)	Dr Obi did in fact issue proceedings before the Privy Council and in the Administrative Court in England challenging the decision to suspend his registration in 2003, and seeking an Order requiring the GMC to grant him a further period of registration. The Privy Council refused Dr Obi’s permission to challenge the suspension, and the Administrative Court has refused his applications for judicial review. He has also brought unsuccessful industrial tribunal proceedings in England which appear to have been based on the same allegations as he is now making in the proceedings instituted in Northern Ireland. His decision to bring these proceedings in Northern Ireland seems to be based on the fact that the GMC now has a regional office in Belfast. In his claim form he stated that the respondent had “recently opened up an office in Northern Ireland, and it is only right and proper that [his Tribunal] claims be heard in this province – irrespective of whether the oppressive GMC actions occurred at it’s [sic] London HQ or elsewhere”.

4 I am satisfied that a Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with these claims for the following reasons:-

(i) The claims are all hopelessly out of time. The act of which he principally complains was the GMC’s decision, to suspend him. This took place in 2003. That was a discrete, not a continuing act, though it does of course have continuing consequences. The time-limits for the various claims are all subject to extension under the just and equitable provision in the relevant legislation. (See : Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, Regulation 48(4); Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, Article 46(5); Disability Discrimination Act 1995; Schedule 3 Paragraph 3(2); and Race Relations (Northern Ireland) 1997, Section 65(7).)

While the ‘just and equitable’ ground for extending time is of course wider than the ‘reasonably practicable’ ground found in other areas of employment law (see : Mills v Marshall [1998] IRLR 494 EAT), it is not elastic. Insofar as the complaint consists of a failure to re-register him, I consider these too to be separate acts, but even if I am wrong on this and this failure constitutes a series of acts, Dr Obi has stated that the last discriminatory act took place on 24 July 2008.

Consequently, this aspect of his claim is also time-barred.

He also makes allegations of harassment, but these are general in nature with no information given as to dates. Time-limits should be adhered to in the absence of good reasons to the contrary, and there is no evidence or information before me which would enable me to exercise my discretion to extend time in relation to any of the claims brought.

This is sufficient to dispose of the matter. However, I now deal with other bars to jurisdiction.

(ii) In relation to age discrimination, no claim can be brought because the 2006 Regulations referred to above were not in force at the time of the alleged act of discrimination. They did not come into effect until 1 October 2006, and there is no provision making them retrospective.

(iii) The GMC is clearly a qualification body within the meaning of the relevant pieces of legislation. It is generally unlawful for such a body to discriminate against someone by withdrawing a qualification from him or by varying the terms on which he holds it.

However, Tribunals do not have jurisdiction where the alleged discriminatory act is one in respect of which an appeal or proceedings in the nature of an appeal may be brought under any statutory provision. (See : The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, Regulations 20 and 41(2)(a); the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, Articles 25 and 38(2); The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Sections 14A and 17A(1A) [as substituted by Regulations 9(1)(c) and 13 respectively of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004]; The Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 19979, Articles 14 and 52(5).)

In the instant case the claimant had a statutory right of appeal by virtue of Section 40 of the Medical Act 1983.

(iv) Finally, I am satisfied that this is an attempt to re-litigate matters which have already been the subject of judicial proceedings in England and Wales, and that it constitutes an abuse of process.

5. Dr Obi, in his claim form, requested a reference to the European Court of Justice for an opinion on whether the registration, employment and recruitment aspects of the GMC’s discretionary powers complied with European Union law.

I decline to make any such reference.

6. I am satisfied that the claimant, in bringing and conducting these proceedings, has acted unreasonably, and that the bringing of these proceedings has been misconceived. I am further satisfied that it is appropriate to award costs against the claimant, and I order that he do pay the sum of £2,500 together with VAT thereon to the respondent in respect of its costs. In making this Order, I have had regard to the claimant’s ability to pay.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 8 December 2009, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions >> Obi v General Medical Council [2010] NIFET 00098_09FET (22 January 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIFET/2010/00098_09FET.html Cite as: [2010] NIFET 98_9FET, [2010] NIFET 00098_09FET

Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions