Employment Appeal Tribunal Overturns Limitation Ruling in Race Discrimination Claim Against GMC
The EAT has overturned a tribunal ruling on time limits, confirming that website content can constitute conduct extending over a period of time.
• public
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has allowed an appeal brought by a doctor against the General Medical Council (GMC), following a legal dispute over the limitation period in a race discrimination claim. Her Honour Judge Tucker found that the original Employment Tribunal made errors in its assessment of whether the claim was brought within the statutory timeframe.
Background to the Dispute
The claimant, a doctor registered with the GMC, faced an investigation following a hospital incident in 2017. Although the Medical Practitioners Tribunal found no impairment of his fitness to practise, it issued a warning in January 2019. This warning was published on the GMC website and remained visible until January 2021.
The claimant alleged that both the publication and the continued retention of this warning on the website constituted race discrimination. An Employment Judge had previously ruled that the claim was significantly out of time, viewing the publication date as the point at which the alleged act occurred.
EAT Findings on Statutory Interpretation
In her judgment, Her Honour Judge Tucker emphasised that courts should focus on the language of section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 rather than relying on the potentially misleading term "continuing act." She noted that the claimant had sufficiently pleaded that the retention of the warning on the website amounted to conduct extending over a period.
The EAT concluded that the original tribunal failed to correctly identify when this period of conduct began and ended. By treating the initial publication as the only relevant date, the tribunal incorrectly calculated the length of the delay. Furthermore, the judge criticised the reliance on prejudice suffered by a different respondent, noting that the GMC, which relies heavily on documentary evidence, did not face the same witness recollection issues.
Outcome and Next Steps
The decision to refuse an extension of time has been set aside. The EAT decided that it could not safely substitute its own view on whether time should be extended, as it could not know how the original judge would have ruled if the correct legal analysis had been applied. Consequently, the case has been remitted to the same Employment Judge for a fresh determination.
Read the entire judgment here: Mokhammad v GMC and Others [2026] EAT 79
