Mr Sanwar Ali v Office of the Immigration Services Commisioner
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination,Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Date | 06 November 2020 |
| Published date | 06 November 2020 |
Copyright 2020
Appeal No. UKEAT/0271/19/VP (V)
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 24 September 2020
Judgment Handed down on 6 November 2020
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
(SITTING ALONE)
MR SANWAR ALI APPELLANT
OFFICE OF THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0271/19/VP(V)
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR B BEYZADE
(Of Counsel)
For the Respondent MS L ROBINSON
(Of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Government Legal Department
102 Petty France
Westminster
London
SW1H 9GL
UKEAT/0271/19/VP (V)
SUMMARY
RACE DISCRIMINATION
It is unlawful for a person who is not a qualified person to provide immigration advice or services.
One route to being a qualified person is to be registered by the Office of the Immigration Services
Commissioner (“OISC”). The OISC also has powers to investigate and prosecute people
suspected of providing such services unlawfully.
Two companies controlled by the Appellant had been registered with the OISC to provide
immigration advice and services. But in 2014 both companies’ applications for renewed
registrations were refused. There is a statutory right of appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal, which
the Appellant in fact exercised, though unsuccessfully. The Employment Tribunal rightly
concluded that the FTT route of challenge amounted to an “appeal or proceedings in the nature
of appeal” within the meaning of section 120(7) Equality Act 2010; and that its availability
therefore meant that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain discrimination complaints about
this conduct. Michalak v General Medical Council [2018] ICR 49 considered.
Some two and a half years later the OISC commenced an investigation into whether the Appellant
was unlawfully providing immigration advice or services in circumstances where he was not a
qualified person (he contended that the arrangements under which he was then operating meant
that he was). This included invit ing him to investigation interviews and obtaining a search
warrant. The Tribunal held that it could not entertain proposed complaints that this was
discriminatory conduct, as this conduct was not within the scope of section 53 of the 2010 Act at
all. The Tribunal was right to so conclude.
To continue reading
Request your trial