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
The C didnt contrib to toxicity or do anything wrong. DSHs Cx was animus to her manif of her P beliefs. Faced w animus the R had choices - cld have dismissed, spoken to C, waited for GMC, followed Cx process, or Ix internally. They embarked on a course that inflcited max damage and a biased and flawed Ix that impacted her health. DSHs objection to her reasonable manifestation was the catalyst to e'thing. Whislt accepting Durrant report both Rs set out on course of action to undermine C w GMC?NHSE. No efforts made to nullify this flawed Ix or rescind the report

Only came out 2 yrs after report. It says it isnt a safe report yet says ? Was clear things werent put to bed - mixed msgs email where HR Robson asked for clarity on the issue. No response. In Dec 23 is clear HR head thinks isnt resolved - ppl saying is left in ether

CM gives good disbelief tone.

Not hard.

He's now on 9 of his 12.

TT
Had ongoing effects that even more egregious as the C didnt know about it til disclossure. THIB kept ? hidden from view for 14 months. The R said was forseeable that those who departed from beliefs cld be called t'phobes. Despite access to expert legal and HR, they decided to duck the case

eg withholding evidence and not interviewing key ppl. The LEA cld have accessed however if wanted to proceed. Was a clear link betwn events - the Rs rely on the link not to Ix. The last decision was an appeal where the Gx docs werent looked at. The C had littel time to address issues in the hearing

Already on 12.

TT
The R dont really dispute the treatment happened. Nor that created a hostile environment - see AD. All the time they knew the Cs central concern was right. Now onto the propositions of law: even where affirmation of a prior belief..?

MLF says the law wld forgive after a passage of time but this is a misunderstanding completely. Further breaches or final straw are valid. There's no contarct claim in civil proceedings that preclude relying on DA Ix and her construc dismissal claim

Harassment soesnt include a mental claim - it doesnt have to be targetted, Once the threshold is reached ? is delib rubbery. The R doesnt have to be aware of a belief or its manifestation at the time of the treatment. ..pages are simply wrong. Its the same as a WB claim

CM is on a roll at the moment.

He's currently on number 5 of a new list

TT
The tribunal is the gatekeeper of this and not the employers lens. The R seem to say we shld have known were protected, not for yr reasons staed but cos are WB. Really?? Its why this claim must succeed. [reads re protected beliefs]

(I think they were only allowed 1 hour to speak each so CM must finish soon?)

CM seems to be hammering it home. Good!

CM being rather unflattering about what he thinks of Respondent submission.

TT
Grounds and motives must be kept firmly distinct. Why AD was protective of DSH dont matter here - its telling the Rs bring this up. The R acts into EA by bringing in animus - whole line of authorities 20 yrs before the EA came into effect. The motive is no answer at all

Its partic common in beleif cases, as shown in Higgs. It coming from others doesnt matter, incl 3rd parties. Warosky saw all the docs from GMC. Where PCs clash is not need for the burden of proof - the shifting burden must be applied and sec 136 must be applied by tribunal

TT
The trib is being actively pushed towards mistakes - saying not to be overly concerned re ? of law. Says to avoid a fragmented approach. Has the burden of proof shifted? [reads out what sec 136 means] At end of each fork in this tribunal is a cul de sac. AD says is because of protected beliefs

How is signing a letter aligned with a protected belief. There is axiomatically room for doubt. Disparate treatment [reading fast] The Clare Proj and DSH vs the landscape re treatement. The EA is misrepresented and a breach of regs unexplained. Not telling the truth when answering Qs and non-disclosure serially

CM final minute....

I've been trying to work out who on earth MLF is, and it's just dawned on me it's just shorthand for "my learned friend".

On the subject of AD, I'd be tempted to suggest he was using the Peter Gabriel defence, but I think most people aren't familiar with this one, and would be wondering where a sledgehammer comes into it

(Glad he's banging on about the dishonesty as that has really shocked me though it shouldn;t have)

CM finished.

No Qs from judge it seems

Judge Thank you all

You'll hear in due course.

(Was a line in between)

Finished

TT
No explanations given to C re choosing DA until told the day before. The EA was contravened - and tribunal doesnt have to find a reason for this. There's no explanation - C a probable WB and took report to GMC. why did this? Tumbleweed.

CM The law and facts all bend in one direction, towards a good dr. That's my case.
J Thank you both. Decision is reserved and I look forward to receiving what we've already discussed.
CM Is the Cass report p3208-10 helpful?
BW We'll stay behind to discuss dates with clerks

It's never usually quite so in your face as it has been this time.

That's so much @Boiledbeetle and @StSpiridian and all. Great summing up by CM.