Appeal No.	 EAT/380/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 21 April 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D J HODGKINS CB
MRS T A MARSLAND

DR M KASSEM HASSAN	APPELLANT

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	Dr Kassem is an Iraqi National. He obtained a medical qualification in that country from the Al-Mustansiriyah College of Medicine and practised medicine there in a post equivalent to the United Kingdom senior house officer grade. He left Iraq and came to this country in October 1991.

	Since arriving in the United Kingdom he has sought registration with the General Medical Council [“GMC”]. He has been unsuccessful. As a result, on 29th September 1998, he presented a complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against the GMC to the London (North) Employment Tribunal.

	On 16th December 1998 the matter came before a tribunal chaired by Mr E Jankowski on two preliminary issues. First, whether his complaint against the GMC fell within s. 12 of the Race Relations Act 1976, that is, that the respondent was a qualifying body for the purpose of his complaint. Secondly, whether his specific complaints, save for a matter arising in June 1998, were out of time, and if so, whether it would be just and equitable to extend time under s.68(6) of the 1976 Act.

	By a reserved decision promulgated with extended reasons on 10th February 1999 the tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint by virtue of s. 12 of the 1976 Act, and further found that it would not have extended time in respect of those matters which fell outside the ordinary three month time limit. The complaint was dismissed.

	Against that decision Dr Kassem now appeals.

	This is a preliminary hearing held to determine whether or not the appeal raises any arguable point or points of law.

	Dr Kassem has appeared in person and we make allowances for his lack of legal training, although we have no doubt as to his intelligence and ability to grasp difficult issues which arise in his case.

	Having heard him, we have concluded that this a matter which ought to proceed to a full appeal hearing. We do not think we can do justice to this case without hearing both sides. Accordingly, we shall permit the matter to proceed, both in relation to the appeal against the s. 12 finding, and the appeal against alternative finding under s. 68(6) of the 1976 Act. As to that latter finding, we observe that the reason put forward by the appellant for not bringing his complaints within time, was that he had taken advice from solicitors who had told him that there was no remedy. We think that the decision of this tribunal in the case of Hawkins & Hall v Barclays Bank Plc [1996] IRLR 258 is of relevance.

	For the purpose of the full appeal hearing, we shall direct that the parties exchange skeleton arguments not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged with this tribunal. The appeal will be listed for a full day’s hearing. Category B. There are no further directions.