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

He's not got much else to work with to be honest.

It's woeful!

TT
BW: C has been very quick to ascribe bad motive, wrongly so. If something is not disclosed, that does not mean it has been withheld. BW: I obviously accept that there has been ongoing disclosure esp the diaries - but I say, nothing of major import.

Nothing of 'major import'- bloody hell! The witness lied repeatedly!

Really trying to play down the cover up.

I did think I'd misheard him!! Obviously not!

If this is the best the Respondents have got, then it's a tad embarrassing imho.

TT
BW: The C's view of what is disclosable differs greatly in terms of what is relevant. Need relevance to list of issues and the case as pleaded.
BW: For example re Dr Sinha. MLF complains that not called as witness. But, the only issue re DrS is that he was recruited, that's all. So, fundamentally - C's argument is, I had heard of an ET he was involved in. That's all.
BW: I did make submission re relevance of Appleby judgment - I didn't know much about it. But on that logic - we cd have had to disclose the entire career history of Dr Sinha. That is not reasonable. Yes was recruited - AD described how.

It's the most "mutter mutter look a squirrel mutter mutter" oral submission I've ever heard.

TT
BW: C case is very open-ended - everything she does linked to the belief. That's not proportionate.
BW: The theme of dishonesty that is put. I say, CM's questioning was extremely robust. BW: Returning to common sense - a failure to disclose does not mean withholding -
J: I understand that.
BW: Para 300 of CM sub - allegation of dishonesty even made against those instructing me. That's simply wrong - instructing solicitor explained issue of legal privilege. It is jumping to a conclusion that doesn't fit.

I'm feeling second hand embarrassment just listening to this.

BW is making a fair point. In all of these ETs I see the claimant looking at fragmentary evidence and from that creating a narrative of how things happened, and that narrative will suit them. Sometimes I see narratives created that I think "sorry but that's one interpretation of many".

No shade on Dr Redvers' case here, just a comment on BW making the most of this in putting forward the defence.

Omg I am cringing so much! It's just so bad!

TT
BW: MLF will be saying, bcs of this week, aha we are right, you didn't disclose what you should have. That's not fair; s/o cannot reasonably be expected to trawl through 6 years of diaries. AD was only added to the case quite recently.

It was the "Ah ha" that finished me off!

I also wonder if BW is going on and on about this in order to save AD by making the judge hesitate in saying he was dishonest in his conduct and evidence in the judgment. Not to win the case overall but to get something of considerable value for AD.

TT
BW: The evidence does not present a picture of dishonesty, but of mistakes. One brief example - in the real word, ppl are very busy. Significant officers, important jobs, long time ago. Meetings can get forgotten.
BW: MLF submits re AD - that when Q'd (before diaries raised) AD cd not remember meeting SH before complaint. Yes possible mtgs did come to light, but at the time AD gave honest evidence.

Those diaries right at the finish must have really pissed BW off! Having to suddenly rewrite stuff and pivot on bits of your argument you've been carefully preparing for ages!

I imagine there was much swearing.

TT
BW: This is the C looking back from here, building a picture of history of relationship; that's an overstatement of things even from here.
BW: Will consider 3 periods, the first one being pre-SH-complaint. MLF says C's referrals were professional and proper - that again is import of hindsight, using the later report PSIR into WellBN. C says, proves me right - but that is hindsight, and cannot mean that at the time
BW: ... the Rs should have ignored SH complaint.

Sooooo busy...
Sooooo important....

And so fucking well paid. People like AD should be willing and able to account for their time and decisions in any senior role.

Agree. It does seem like damage limitation rather than a full-on 'we were right' defence.

.

Is AD attending the tribunal in paid time or using his annual leave?

TT
BW: p73-74 of CM subs - CM says, complaint shd not have been i/xd. That is hindsight. And, remind yuo that C's own evidence given here was that i/x-ing was appropriate.
BW: C's case is that Rs are responsible for how it was i/x'd. But I put it that MLF is trying to reshape matters (para 151) - saying that even though C agreed i/x was appropriate, it was not. MLF claiming Rs aware of things they were not.

Well I'm gonna guess he won't be expected to waste his annual leave on such a trivial matter.

TT
BW: Advocates do shape argument of course - but, the picture that C's case advances is that C had made complaints re SH - but, must be noted that SH had been cleared. The fundamentals - that SH not acting properly - were not upheld.
BW: The C's case is asking you judge to look behind the Rs action - but that is hindsight. Were C's complaints re SH well founded? Yes but nobody knew that till reported on later.