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

I love CM. He launched off this morning with an apology to the judge for the number of pages in his submission - 'It's about as slender as I am'.

Reader, he is not slender.

😄

He should also get a prize for
"Believed in little other than his own abilities."

Thanks for the TT posting all! I guess we will see.

That's how any trial or hearing works, though. Unless your opposing side actually hands over a document saying 'Yes we did it, and here's why.' you have to assemble fragments of evidence into a narrative. Naturally each side picks the narrative that suits their aim, and the judge decides which is credible.

Many thanks for the postings, explanations legal and other relevancies, there were times even when rereading I’m still pondering. In the eras of mankind I still call this one:

’When common sense not only went out the window but the blinds and shutters were firmly pulled down to any reasonable questioning or analysis.

Fingers crossed common sense and justice will prevail.

Thanks to everyone for their hard work again (and also for My Learned Friend translation). I can't tell you how shocked I am about this morning. Lying appears to be endemic in certain areas.

I'm hearing this defence put forward by a laid back Australian barrister, Crocodile Dundee style.

"Nah, mate. It wasn't personal; we're bastards to everyone. Nothing discriminatory about that."

Hahaha yes 😂

One abbreviation I kept meaning to ask about: who or what is LEA?. I keep reading it as local education authority, but that's definitely not it.

Lived Experience Advisor.

Well, that was quite a ride!

All kudos and thanks to the good Dr R

And, of course, all those who have C&P'd

Is it like a patient representative?

Ah, of course. I think they were called 'expert patients' last time I had anything to do with that side of things. Keep forgetting the new term.

Thanks to TT & heroic C&Ps

It would be reasonable to assume that many people go to an ET to shed light on poor behaviour by public bodies employing them - partly because how else can it get out but chiefly because those employees and their careers have usually been badly damaged by the bullying of the employer.

On this occasion the central issues are highly charged and political, but this fat cat patronage of those driven to an ET boils my piss. Going to an ET almost always means you have been done over and if you weren’t done over enough you are likely to be now.

Thanks so much to the C&Ps, you have done an incredible job.
CM was on a real mission there, no messing around, no punches pulled. I am also getting confused by some of the abbreviations, but I have at least caught up.

I think I might have cringed myself inside out, I used to do patient engagement work when it was called that and they were called patient representatives. I’d have rolled my eyes at “expert patients” even 😂

Thanks to TT and all the C&Ps and summaries. I've really only been able to dip in and out of this one, so it's helped a lot. Open and shut case, I would think, but we've all been here before, many times!

You must know my BIL!

Well that was quite the finish, the 1812 cannon finale.

Thank you all for the thread, c and ps and everything.

The “Bastard Defence”
This is the argument that an employer did not discriminate because they treat everyone equally badly, offensively, or unreasonably. There is therefore no “less favourable treatment” of the claimant because of a protected characteristic (sex, race, age, etc.). A comparator (actual or hypothetical person without the characteristic) would have received the same poor treatment.

The “Incompetence Defence”
This is the related argument that adverse decisions or treatment resulted from managerial incompetence, errors, or a shambolic process, rather than discriminatory motives (conscious or subconscious).

AD , and potentially other members of his leadership team, may now fail NHSE Fit and Proper Persons Test. Further I suspect there may be something in policies with regards to bringing organisation into disrepute which is subject to gross misconduct penalties. These may not be linked to outcome of case but the WS and presentations made by respondents.

So basically they're going for Incompetent Bastard then?
Bring back the stocks.

Like Inglorious Bastards but shitter