Redvers v NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board & Mr Adam Doyle Thread 3

[fanOfBen]

TT summary:

Dr Redvers, a named GP safeguarding lead, has a constructive dismissal case. Clinical concerns were raised about a specific doctor at WellBN, a Brighton GP practice. She claims that as a result of escalating those claims from 2020 onwards, she was constructively dismissed.

Her legal claim is discrimination on the grounds of her employer’s perception she had gender critical beliefs and on the grounds of her protected belief in evidence-based medicine (EBM). The respondent defends the latter claim by pleading that EBM is just an opinion.

Earlier coverage of this hearing can be found on TT's Substack at:
t.co/TwXeLCDnpt

TT report what they hear in good faith but do not provide a verbatim transcript of the hearing.

TT's list of abbreviations:

J - Judge Katherine Andrews (sitting alone)
DR/C - Doctor Sarah Redvers, claimant
CM/RB - Chris Milsom, claimant barrister
CE/RB - Charlotte Elves, Claimant Barrister
PD - Peter Daly, solicitor for the C

NHSSICB/R1 - NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board, first respondent
AD/R2 - Adam Doyle, second respondent, CEO of R1 2019-2025
Rs - collectively the respondents
RB/BW - Ben Williams, Respondent's barrister
EBM - Evidence-based medicine
SG - Safeguarding

WB - WellBN, Brighton based GP practice
GC - Gender Critical or sex realist beliefs
GI - Gender Identity belief
WS - Witness Statement
Ix - investigation
Gx - grievance
Cx - complaint

SH/DSH - Dr Sam Hall, GP at WellBN, Trustee - the Clare Project (TCP), Clinical Lead - Trans Health Hub, GIC Partner - Trans Health Improvement Board at R1, trans-identified female
DA - Dusty Amroliwala, ext consultant, investigated complaint filed by DSH against C
LB - Lola Banjoko, Exec Managing Director, chair of Trans Health Improvement Board, advised R1 on trans matters
NC - Nikky Cambridge, former trustee of TCP

AC - Allison Cannon, Chief Nursing Officer, R1, tasked w implementing the recommendations of the 1st grievance outcome
CCD - Dr Claire Cochrane-Dyet, Dep Medical Director for System Improvement & Professional Standards, NHSE, commissioned Warshafsky Report
HD - Dr Hannah Davies, Deputy Chief Medical Office, R1

SD - Samantha Durrant, Lay vice chair until July 2022, 1st grievance manager
NE - Naomi Ellis, dep director of Safeguarding, R1
MF - Dr Mary Flynn, Named GP for Safeguarding, also filed g/x in relation to Amroliwala Report
PF - Pennie Ford, Executive Managing Director, R1, 2nd grievance manager

EG - Dr Elizabeth Gill, Chief Medical Officer, R1
HH - Hannah Hamilton, Chief financial officer, R1, 2nd grievance appeal manager
BJ - Dr Becky Jarvis, clinical lead for mental health, R1
TM - Tom Micklewright, managing partner of Lime Tree Surgery

IM - Ian Mundy, HR Consultant, Your Consultancy, 1st grievance investigator
MP - Mark Power, interim Chief People Officer (until April 2022), R1, managed Amroliwala investigation
RR - Dr Rebecca Richards, GP partner, Lime Tree Surgery, raised concerns to C about SH
AR - Anne Robson, Interim Chief People Officer (April -August 2022), R1

DS - Dr Dinesh Sinha, Chief Medical Officer (June 2022 - April 2024), Chair of Trans Health Improvement Board (THIB)
MS - Mark Smith, Chief People Officer, R1 (Aug 2022 - Jan 2025) Acting CEO (Jan 2025 - June 2025) Deputy CEO & Director of Transition (June 2025 - present)
RW - Dr Robin Warshafsky, GP NHSE, Author of Warshafsky Report (WR)

Thread 1:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5586672-wellbn-brighton-gp-practice-do-not-believe-in-evidence-based-medicine-tt-at-employment-tribunal-tomorrow

Thread 2:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5588924-redvers-v-nhs-sussex-integrated-care-board-mr-adam-doyle-thread-2

Not wanting to derail this thread I have started a new thread link below regarding a lecture at Oxford about inclusion of trans people in sport and society

The juggernaut is still rolling and women are being ignored about our concerns

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5591971-oxford-university-ebd-lecture

Likewise. I just got autoreplies too but no access.

Thank to everyone this week and last on these threads for the updates and comments. I wasn't able to follow as closely as we were away (unreasonable family expected me to interact with them!!!) but have now caught up. Seems like it was a bit of a wild ride. I'm not going to apply for access, and I guess it's too late anyhow, so am relying on you lovely lot and Tribunal Tweets to give a flavour of what's going on.

Thank you one and all

I'm not cut and pasting (I'm on with other things) but just so everyone knows what's going on.

TT

Good morning; this is the final day in the hearing of Dr Redvers vs Sussex NHS ICB & Mr Adam Doyle at employment tribunal.

The barristers for each side will be presenting their closing submissions on the case.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/2113551231238988044

We expect the hearing to begin at 10.00am.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/2113551256354525288

We are in the room.

The room is black.

But it might, fingers crossed, be full screen!!

It's not started yet. At least I hope it hasn't!

Camera is on.

Still full screen.

Trailing cables being plugged in to heighten accident levels.

Laptops being fired up.

Judge is saying morning etc.

We are about to get started.

Oral submissions, she's read the written ones hasn't pondered on them yet, and there is a lot of pondering.

They will get an hour each.

Will be reserving her decision.

Can't give definite timetable for getting it out.

Going to be a long decision

Aiming for before Christmas.

bigly screen!!

Am doing other things this morning so can't post all TT. But happy to do it as and when I can, until someone else can step in?

Still general wittering

TT
J: Welcomes everyone, note that Peter Daly (solicitor for C) is having to attend online. Thank you for written subs, have read both but not pondered at length. One hour maximum each please - limit not target.

"Two barristers droning on"

For once i feel I must agree!

J: If I ask you to move on, I am not expressing agreement but saying that I understand your point. I shall not be making immediate judgment and can't give definite timetable, it's going to be a long decision and will need a lot of thought.

J: I shall aim (but cannot promise) for before Christmas.

CM: Can I note - we only have downloadable links for submissions, not read-only? J: That is not usual, but, not a problem for me. CM: They are summary of the public hearing so it's fine by me

Just shut up and get on with it for God's sake!

TT
BW: Not so simple for us - can understand why C's are OK with it as will become clear. If we did not have written subs ppl would only be able to listen at the time.

BW: Court has only limited control once hearing ends, I'm not comfortable with that either generally or in this case, or with potential mis-reporting.

TT
BW: MLF is right that this is a distillation of what has already been public but not comfortable
J: Presumably this is a matter of time and technology, to get non-downloadable? CE: That's not really possible, we can't access the usual facility

TT
J: We could make them available in non down-loadable format after the hearing, for a certain amount of time? Will leave that with Mr Daly. In light of BW comments (and I don't disagree) we will proceed that way.

Interesting that claimant's counsel is happy for written submissions to be available to the public while counsel for the NHS instinctively wants to resist.

And finally we start.

Respondent's counsel up first.

(Claimant's counsel has a cold, which should make his fun later)

He's doing a lot of wittering!

TT
CM: A time limit? Until judgment?
BW: We need a limit yes.
J: 14 days is obvious perhaps but I agree, until judgment.

J: Mr Williams?
BW: I anticipated I might have to apologise for length of my subs. But, given importance of the case - it's important judge we give you plenty of time for your deliberations.
BW: Shall be mainly responding to what my MLF has said in his subs. The law is largely agreed between us - MLF has set out at length. This is not a case where I take issue with the law - I take issue with the facts and how you find them to be.
BW: For example on agency, re Mr Amariwola - we have agreed on that, but, not on the Lived Experience Advisor.
BW: This is a unique case, there are unique manifestations of a unique belief - so inherently linked to being a doctor, to safeguarding, that it makes every aspect of what C does (as a s/g medic) linked to it.

TT
BW: MLF might say it is very straightforward - protected acts, clear manifestations, doesn't matter that Rs don't know about belief or that C had it.
BW: MLF says everything linked to it - I say it cannot have been in the contemplation of legislature when writing S26 that the law would operate in that way.
BW: I say the contemporaneous picture is important. What was understood then as compared to what is understood now.
BW: Top of problems at ET - many claimants come to ET wanting a sort of public enquiry, this case has become like that.
BW: Want to focus on key event - the receipt of Dr Hall's complaint to R1, and will come to that. But first - importance of contemporaneous understanding - hindsight has been much imported into this case.

He's going for the 'we just didn't know we were doing the wrong thing at the time' defence....

TT
BW: Hard for a C to be objective - for R witnesses too. But, here everyone is looking back over a whole sequence; but, many things said now were not said at the time. MLF says that doesn't matter - I say it does.
BW: So the key event, SH complaint. MLF argues that the R is adopting and expressing the discriminatory animus of SH; I say that is not so.
BW: MLF says the complaint was i/x / accepted in order to stave off hostility from SH. I disagree.

That’s been a feature of these cases.