Send response to journal:
Re: BMA Funds "unreasonable and vexatious" Appeal
 

Despite having a meritorious discrimination claim, Dr Jadhav encountered terrible difficulties(as evidenced by Dr Jadhav's rapid response) when seeking assistance from the BMA legal department.However, a sex discrimination appeal brought by one Dr Gammon, which was supported and funded by the BMA[1] was described by the Employment Appeal Tribunal('EAT') "as unreasonable and vexatious"[1].Surely, that is one of the worst findings that an appellate tribunal could make against a party.

Moreover,the EAT went on to award 70% of the respondent NHS Trust's costs amounting to £6,000. It is somewhat astonishing that the BMA supported and funded a case[1]where the EAT found at para.70,"The allegations were not properly particularised at the outset and were refined even during the course of the hearing. The assertion of misconduct by the Tribunal lacked any substance".

How did the BMA ended-up funding such a hopeless case? Would a doctor from an ethnic minority, particulary an Asian male,have received funding from the BMA where even the "allegations were not properly particularised at the outset"[1] as independently found by the EAT? Isn't this more evidence that suggests BMA's double-standards? Surely, the BMA must investigate this case,given the gravity of the EAT's findings.

References

[1] Dr Alison Gammon v Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust; UKEAT/0563/03/SM:11 June 2004. [http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/uploads/UKEAT0563032022004/index.htm] (accessed 16 May 2005)