Introduction

Michalak v. General Medical Council and others ([2017] WLR(D) 734) is a landmark decision by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that addresses the jurisdictional boundaries between judicial review proceedings and Employment Tribunals under the Equality Act 2010. The case involves Dr. Ewa Michalak, a former doctor employed by the Mid-Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, who was dismissed in 2008. Following her dismissal, Dr. Michalak pursued claims of unfair dismissal, sex and race discrimination, and victimization against the Trust, which were upheld by the Employment Tribunal. Subsequently, the Trust reported her to the General Medical Council (GMC), leading to fitness to practise proceedings. Dr. Michalak alleged that the GMC discriminated against her during these proceedings and failed to investigate her complaints against other doctors. The central legal issue revolves around whether judicial review proceedings exclude the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal to hear discrimination claims under section 120(7) of the Equality Act 2010.

The parties involved include Dr. Ewa Michalak as the appellant and the GMC, along with its chief executive and an investigation officer, as respondents. The appellants sought to strike out Dr. Michalak's complaints on the grounds that the Employment Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the availability of judicial review as an alternative remedy.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal brought by the GMC, holding that judicial review does not constitute a proceeding in the nature of an appeal under section 120(7) of the Equality Act 2010. Consequently, the Employment Tribunal retained jurisdiction to hear Dr. Michalak's discrimination claims against the GMC. The Court clarified that judicial review, rooted in common law, differs fundamentally from appeal procedures provided by statute. It emphasized that section 120(7) was intended to exclude only those proceedings that are expressly recognized as appeals under specific statutory provisions, rather than the broader and distinct mechanism of judicial review.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively analyzed previous cases to elucidate the nature of judicial review and its distinction from statutory appeals. Key cases include:

• Khan v General Medical Council [1996]: Established that applications to the Review Board constituted proceedings in the nature of an appeal, thereby excluding Employment Tribunal jurisdiction.
• Tariquez-Zaman v General Medical Council: Discussed whether judicial review could be categorized as an appeal, concluding it could not.
• Jooste v General Medical Council [2012]: Reinforced that judicial review does not equate to an appeal for the purposes of Employment Tribunal jurisdiction.
• R (Beeson) v Dorset County Council [2002]: Affirmed that judicial review is grounded in common law principles, independent of statutory enactments.
• R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2011]: Highlighted that the scope of judicial review is a common law artifact aimed at upholding the rule of law.

These precedents collectively informed the Court's understanding that judicial review operates distinctly from statutory appeals, thereby not triggering the exclusionary clause of section 120(7).

Legal Reasoning

The Court dissected the language and intent of section 120(7) of the Equality Act 2010, which aims to prevent overlapping or redundant dispute resolution processes. The section stipulates that Employment Tribunals do not have jurisdiction over matters that are already subject to appeals or appeal-like proceedings provided by statute.

The pivotal question was whether judicial review falls within the ambit of "proceedings in the nature of an appeal." The Supreme Court concluded it does not, primarily because:

• Judicial review focuses on the legality and procedural propriety of decisions, not on re-examining the merits or factual findings of those decisions.
• Appeals under section 120(7) are intended to encompass statutory appeals that have a comprehensive review mechanism, unlike judicial review which addresses different legal concerns.
• The historical context and legislative intent behind section 120(7) did not encompass common law remedies like judicial review.

Additionally, the Court emphasized that prohibiting Employment Tribunals from hearing discrimination claims merely because judicial review is available would undermine the specialized and accessible nature of tribunals designed to handle such disputes effectively.

Impact

This decision has significant implications for employment law and the administration of justice in the UK:

• Reinforces the distinct roles of Employment Tribunals and judicial review, ensuring that specialized tribunals remain accessible avenues for discrimination claims.
• Clarifies that the availability of judicial review does not preclude complainants from seeking redress in Employment Tribunals, thus preventing potential obstructions to justice.
• Sets a precedent for interpreting exclusion clauses in legislation, emphasizing the necessity to differentiate between statutory appeals and common law remedies.
• Encourages tribunals to manage their caseloads efficiently without being undermined by alternative legal remedies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a legal process where courts examine the lawfulness of decisions or actions made by public bodies. It does not reassess the merits of the decision but ensures that the proper procedures were followed and that the decision was made within legal boundaries.

Employment Tribunal

An Employment Tribunal is a specialized judicial body in the UK that resolves disputes between employers and employees, particularly concerning employment rights such as unfair dismissal, discrimination, and victimization.

Section 120(7) of the Equality Act 2010

This section restricts the jurisdiction of Employment Tribunals by excluding certain cases where specific statutory appeal mechanisms are available, intending to streamline dispute resolution processes and avoid overlapping legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Michalak v. General Medical Council and others [2017] decisively clarified the relationship between judicial review and Employment Tribunal jurisdiction under the Equality Act 2010. By distinguishing judicial review as a separate and non-appeal-like remedy, the Court ensured that individuals like Dr. Michalak retain the right to pursue discrimination claims within the specialized and accessible framework of Employment Tribunals. This ruling upholds the legislative intent to streamline dispute resolution mechanisms and prevents the dilution of tribunal jurisdiction through the availability of broad common law remedies. Consequently, the judgment reinforces the effectiveness of Employment Tribunals in addressing employment-related discrimination while maintaining the integrity of judicial review as a distinct legal process.