GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL v MISS H COX [2001] UKEAT 76_01_2003
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 76_01_2003Case No Appeal No. EAT/76/01Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCILAPPELLANTMISS H COXRESPONDENT
Before
Mr Recorder LangstaffLord Gladwin of CleeDate 20 March 2001
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR BRIAN NAPIER (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Field Fisher Waterhouse Solicitors 35 Vine Street London EC3N 2AA MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC This comes before us by way of a Preliminary Hearing in an Appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at London Central whose Extended Reasons were promulgated on 1 December 2000.[2]For the assistance of the Tribunal which ultimately hears the Appeal Inter Partes because we propose to give permission for this to go forward we should say a few words. The issue is one preliminary point only, namely whether or not the General Medical Council constitutes a "trade organisation" within the meaning of sections 13 and 68 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.[3]The consequence of so finding would be that the Employment Tribunal could consider the Respondent's complaint that she had been discriminated against under that Act. The critical issue appears to be who is a member of the General Medical Council. The obvious meaning might be a member of the Council itself that being the description given by the initials GMC themselves. It appears to us arguable that since Schedule 1 of the Medical Act 1983 prescribes the membership of the Council, and since it appears to be common ground that among those members there are individuals who are not doctors, at least of medicine, that the General Medical Council does not fall within the definition in section 13.[4]However, the definition must be examined in the light of the Disability Discrimination Act and a view taken as to whether or not the scope of that Act and a purposive interpretation of it would be such as to compel a different meaning to be given to that which would on the face of it perhaps be obvious.[5]We should say no more about the merits because they are not for us to determine or express any concluded view upon, save that we consider it arguable that the General Medical Council has the same relationship to doctors and trainee doctors as members of a local authority Council may have to rate payers and ultimately whether that analogy holds good or not will be for others to decide.[6]Accordingly on that basis and that the grounds of appeal seem to us all to be arguable the Appeal should take no more than 3 hours to argue. It will be Category B. Skeleton Arguments to be provided 14 days in advance. Copies of any authorities which should include any relevant statute to be provided 7 days in advance.