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

TT
BW: The key to this chapter - pre complaint - is how it came to an end. What we know is, that the external i/x commissioned was not fit for purpose. But the Rs have taken ownership of that - acknowledged the problem, ran another i/x into it, it was resolved.
BW: C says, it was not resolved, things hung over her. But, that is the nature of resolution - not everyone is happy with every aspect. In July 2022 it was resolved; the complaint by SH would not be revisited.

Well I would have thought it is R,s job to know

TT
BW: No, since then - with the benefit of hindsight again - the C says that the incident at the TNIB in 2023 was linked back.
BW: The workshop at the end of the year dealt with the final outstanding issues. C did not complain at the time eg that reputation not repaired, but, Dr Flynn was entirely clear that things had been cleared up.
BW: [reference to a legal argument]
BW: There is a significant time gap - problem for C - months and months when AD does nothing to upset C, nothing happens. Then the regrettable incident at the TNIB mtg, and C says, well that absolutely is linked in every way to what went before, bcs SH there.

I'm currently imagining him spending half an hour, using this style of argument, explaining to his wife why he hasn't loaded the dishwasher and it's all her fault!

TT
BW: SH was of course there, but is not the "missing piece of the jigsaw" C claims. BW: MLF says the period between was limbo, uncertain state etc - I disagree. It was a state of resolution, agreement to leave things be.
BW: The whole point of resolution of that kind is to let everyone get on with doing their job. Now the C says she was fearful - but nothing was said at the time.
BW: What C is seeking seems to be complete vindication re what happened in 2021-22. She believes she was right, and wronged by SH; SH believes to be in the right, and wronged by the C.

TT
BW: Only way to sort that out would be a mediation type investigation, but at the time it was not what happened, hindsight again
BW: So the TNIB mtg. C argues that SH caused what was said. But, it was not SH that said it. Hindsight is imported again - says the speaker shd have been shut down. In an ideal world possibly - but in context, it could not be.
BW: The Chair found an unprecedented state of affairs, not clear what to do. She quite properly told the C shortly after.
BW: What's important is how R handled C's complaint about it (and yes no need to wait for complaint). I am not saying R's response to the complaint was perfect, but, don't accept that C can link everything back in that way.

(is he trying to bore the judge into submission?)

An FoI request to his employers Medway & Kent ICB should get the answer but as he is a respondent I think they have to give him time off in any case. Whether that is paid or not would depend on the employer's policy.

Well I'd drifted and clicked on a trending thread so if it has the same effect on the judge then job done for BW!

It's just soooo complex 🙄

And yet CM is no doubt going to prove how simple it all was!!

TT
BW: I say "not perfect". Much is made of the appeal. C's evidence was clear I say - she had lost all confidence. I don't criticise her for that, but it creates a circular problem. C wants vindication for 2021-22 - that was not in the gift of the R at that time re the complaint / grievance.
BW: SO where are we. This is a factually complex case, but in some ways it is more straightforward. The thing to do is look at the reasonableness of what R1 did at the time.
BW: Was it reasonable to i/x SH complaint, considered at the time? I say yes. And so on for other events.

TT
BW: And re C's protected beliefs. MLF and I both address this but I still note, no mention at the time. BW: I am concerned that Grainger is being stretched - have written on this.
BW: [missed, re manifestation] BW: No doubt that C was raising safeguarding, and if that was the lens we use it would be entirely clear as whistleblowing, but, that is not the lens an ET uses.
BW: Judge I am not going to go through CM subs saying "disagree, disagree", you have the evidence.

BW done

Judge asking Q

TT
BW: The key point, I repeat, is the complaint made by SH - it was the first domino where this ET is the last. So the C has a problem with the time gap. Between resolution of that and events in 2023. I will finish there.

‘She believes she was right, and wronged by SH; SH believes to be in the right, and wronged by the C.’

If they wanted to present what SH ‘believes’, then shouldn’t they have had her as a witness?

Also, blinkin’ heck, a unique manifestation of a unique belief. Are they presenting black as white, if that is SR understanding of a reality along the majority of the non indoctrinated world and has since time immemorial. Nuts.

Ooh judge pissed off.

TT
J: One question - I asked for joint legal args where you agree. CM has put much law, do I understand you agree with that? BW: No Judge - see my subs [is looking for ref]
J: My intention was to get a factual account of events also eg Cass Review dates?
CM: My appendix 2 - re under 18s.
J: If I have to piece together every fact, it's almost inevitable I will make mistakes because I'm not a medic.
CM: I did ask what of my app2 was disputed, but have not had an answer.
BW: [refs to his own subs where he disagrees] I think we all agree this important doc does set out legal and regulatory framework - it's an external document so not 'argued' by either of us.

TT
J: So compare your appendix 2 with the PSIR and work it out?
CM: Not exactly - the point is only that at no point, outside a GIDS clinic, could a GP prescribe to under 18s. Mr Doyle admitted this. Set out in App2.
J: In my judgment I need to give context and background, so I was looking for an agreed document on the medical and regulatory matters.

Judge finished asking questions

CM up now

TT
CM: So our appendix 2 sets out the position throughout on children whihch didn't change; and then afterwards the position re adults, which did
J: But BW does not agree it?
BW: I will take instructions on that.
J: OK - Mr Milsom [new thread will be started now]

TT
CM I have 3 matters including distilling this case with 7 propositions of law. Our amendments to subs: para 300 o p115 - we withdraw. p340 explains why end of para can be withdrawn starting email from LEA
CM p125: Conrathe was the solic rather than parent. para 416 p170: isnt an exhaustive account re a PC. Want to add ToR referring to irreg or improper - relating to 16 Aug mtg and the original Cx. The mtg w AD in 2022 re speaking to motives of complainant

TT
CM DAs report p1270: reads re quotes indictating beliefs. Its outrageous to suggest has an underlying motive... CM Now addressing the R: para 6 and 129 of subs of MLF: they advance posn of a polarised debate w equal legitimacy. There are a range of legit GC views
CM The C says GI belief may be protected and DSHs views of consent. But isnt the same that vaalues are of equal worth. The C was employed by R and put pat safety front and centre, based on basic precept of Western Medicine. The dr was well outside service specification

BW is right that SHs complaint/grievance should be investigated. All complaints/grievances should be considered even if unfounded. That’s the whole point of having a grievance procedure.

it’s a regular feature of complaints, performance management etc. that the person(s) complained about lodge a grievance often bullying and harassment and/or discrimination. In this case the C lodged a safeguarding referral and SH retaliated with a complaint/grievance.

The issue for the C is that she was labelled as transphobic in a meeting she wasn’t present at. The transphobic slur was minuted and came from the initial whistleblowing/safeguarding because R had not dealt with that correctly. BW is trying to use the gap between the initial safeguarding and the meeting to time limit what is actually part of the timeline for constructive dismissal.

TT
CM They were trated v differentently - a witchhunt that was shared w regs and prob WBM but prob not her. The Rs spike the GMC proceedings and patient X operate as a protection racket. No other way to look at the evidence. This disparity also in Aug 23. DSH fires at weel. The employer is expected to put up w it. The Cs beliefs [missed] Emperical reality may disapper into the ether. The Q of weather the Cx is well founded. A PC can be grounded in reality. [discussion of manifesting a protected beleif]