Ms A ArkorfulClaimantSocial Work EnglandRespondent
Before
Employment Judge C PorterIn person for claimantMr C McDevitt (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 22 January 2026
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the tribunal is that the claim is struck out on the grounds that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
REASONS
Issues to be determined
[1]At the outset it was confirmed that hearing had been listed to determine the application of the respondent that the claim should be struck out on the grounds that: 1.1. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim; or 1.2. The claim had no reasonable prospect of success. Orders[2]It was agreed and ordered that the tribunal would deal firstly with the issue as to whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The judge stressed that in making this determination the tribunal would not hear any evidence relating to, or make any decision on, the substantive merits of the claim. Evidence[3]No evidence was heard.[4]Each party relied upon their own bundle of documents. There was a delay to the proceedings while these were uploaded to the tribunal’s DUC system and copies provided to the judge. The claimant confirmed that she had paper copies of the bundles in front of her. References to page numbers in these Reasons are references to the page numbers in the respondent’s Bundle. (RB) Submissions[5]As this was the respondent’s application its submissions were heard first. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the written application for strike out set out in its email dated 19 July 2024 (RB58) and its Grounds of Resistance. In addition, counsel made a number of detailed oral submissions which the tribunal has considered with care but does not rehearse in full here. In essence it was asserted that:-5.1 the claimant was never an employee of the respondent;5.2 the respondent is a qualifications body within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010;5.3 the claimant pursues a complaint of direct race discrimination in relation to the alleged discriminatory conduct of the respondent identified at a previous preliminary hearing as follows:5.3.1 On 8 February 2022, a panel of adjudicators appointed by SWE varied and extended a Conditions of Practice Order that had been imposed by the Conduct and Compliance Committee of the Health and Care Professionals Council (“HCPC”) on 26 June 2019. SWE had replaced HCPC as the regulator of social workers in England in December 2019;5.3.2 On 2 November 2022, a panel of adjudicators appointed by SWE varied and extended the Conditions of Practice Order for a further period of nine months;5.3.3 On 31 August 2023, SWE made an order suspending the claimant as a Social Worker for six months; and5.3.4 On 14 February 2024, SWE extended the suspension for 9 months.5.4 the claimant pursues her complaint under s53(2) Equality Act 2010 (“EqA 2010”);5.5 the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear such complaints if there is a statutory right of appeal against the alleged discriminatory acts;5.6 the claimant does have a statutory right of appeal in relation to each of her complaints and has exercised that right in relation to some of the allegations which she now seeks to pursue before this tribunal;5.7 the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this claim.[6]The claimant relied upon written submissions which the tribunal has considered with care but does not repeat here. The claimant was given the opportunity to make additional oral submissions. However, she did not address the issue on jurisdiction but repeated her allegations that the treatment of her was unfair, a breach of her human rights, that the action taken against her was based on false allegations, unsupported by any evidence, and that she had been left unable to pursue her career as a social worker for no good reason. Facts[7]The following findings of fact are not in dispute.[8]The claimant was at the relevant time a Registered Social Worker. She had conditions placed on her practise in 2019. The respondent assumed responsibility for the regulation of social workers in 2022 and appointed panels of adjudicators to consider and make determinations on a social worker’s fitness to practice.[9]The claimant was not, at any time, an employee of the respondent.[10]The respondent is a qualifications body within the meaning of s55 Equality Act 2010.[11]The claimant presented her ET1 and Attachment on 30 May 2024. At a preliminary hearing on 4 September 2024 before EJ Shore (RB152) the claimant withdrew her claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010. Each of those claims was dismissed upon withdrawal. The only remaining claim was identified at that hearing as being a claim of direct race discrimination in relation to the following alleged discriminatory acts:17.1 On 8 February 2022, a panel of adjudicators appointed by SWE varied and extended a Conditions of Practice Order that had been imposed by the Conduct and Compliance Committee of the Health and Care Professionals Council (“HCPC”) on 26 June 2019. SWE had replaced HCPC as the regulator of social workers in England in December 2019;17.2 On 2 November 2022, a panel of adjudicators appointed by SWE varied and extended the Conditions of Practice Order for a further period of nine months;17.3 On 31 August 2023, SWE made an order suspending the claimant as a Social Worker for six months; and17.4 On 14 February 2024, SWE extended the suspension for 9 months.[12]The Social Workers Regulations 2018 provide a social worker with a statutory right of appeal against the decisions of the respondent.[13]The claimant exercised that right of appeal to the High Court in relation to the decisions identified at paragraphs17.1 and17.2 in paragraph 11 above. She also exercised her right of appeal to the High Court in relation to a decision of the respondent made on 29 October 2024 (RB169).
The Law
[14]S.53(2) EqA states that: “(2) A qualifications body(a) (A) must not discriminate against a person(b) (B) upon whom A has conferred a relevant qualification – (a) by withdrawing the qualification from B; (b) by varying the terms on which B holds the qualification;(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.”[15]Section 120 EqA, states: “(1) An employment tribunal has, subject to section 121, jurisdiction to determine a complaint relating to – (a) a contravention of Part 5 (work); […] (7) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to a contravention of section 53 in so far as the act complained of may, by virtue of an enactment, be subject to an appeal or proceedings in the nature of an appeal.”[16]Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 of The Social Workers Regulations 2018, states: Appeals 16.— (1) A social worker may appeal to the High Court against – (a) the decision of adjudicators – (i) to make an interim order, other than an interim order made at the same time as a final order under paragraph 11(1)(b), (ii) not to revoke or vary such an order, (iii) to make a final order, (b) the decision of the regulator on review of an interim order, or a final order, other than a decision to revoke the order.[17]The tribunal has considered and where appropriate applied the authorities referred to in submissions. Determination of the application to strike out the claim[18]The claimant has a genuine sense of grievance about the actions of the respondent. She has expressed her strong view that she has been treated unfairly, that she did nothing wrong in carrying out her duties as a social worker, and that the respondent has wrongly taken away from her the right to practice as a social worker, based on false allegations, unsubstantiated by the evidence.[19]However, the strength of the claim, the severity of any injustice to the claimant, is not a relevant consideration in relation to this application to strike out. The only question is whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim, whether the tribunal can proceed to a hearing, and determination, of the claimant’s allegations.[20]The tribunal is a creature of statute. It only has jurisdiction to hear claims as provided to the tribunal by relevant statutes. The tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claims of race discrimination is provided by the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal is bound by the terms of the Equality Act.[21]The claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. Her claim of race discrimination is a claim against the respondent as a qualifications body within s53 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear such a claim as it relates to work.[22]However, the tribunal’s ability to determine claims of discriminatory treatment within s53 Equality Act 2010 is restricted by the provisions of s120 Equality Act, which clearly provides that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear such claims where the claimant has a statutory right of appeal against the alleged discriminatory decisions. The claimant does have such a statutory right of appeal, is fully aware of that statutory right and has exercised it on two occasions by presenting appeals to the High Court.[23]The claimant has failed to address the issue of jurisdiction. She asserts that she has a right to a fair hearing, has been denied that right, and wishes to seek justice by pursuing this claim before this tribunal.[24]The tribunal acknowledges that the claimant has a right to a fair hearing. However, the tribunal can only provide such a hearing for claims which fall within its jurisdiction.[25]The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. The provisions of s53 and s120 Equality Act are clear. The claimant has a statutory right of appeal against the actions of the respondent. That takes the claim outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal.[26]The application to strike out is successful. Approved by: