Are you thinking about blowing the whistle in the NHS?

Could your life depend on someone else blowing the whistle in the NHS?

If you are a lawyer or Judge, what do you make of all of this?

Credit and with thanks to Juice Media

Introduction

My name is Dr Chris Day. I am an A&E doctor and have quite literally been fighting an NHS whistleblowing case for the last 10 years.  

I say more below about who I am and how I got into this crazy position but that can wait.

Thank you for visiting our Crowdjustice page updating on our recent wasted cost Judgment against Hill Dickinson Solicitors. (click here to skip to the legal papers and Judgment). 

This is the case challenging the NHS lawyers that made public money arguing all English doctors below consultant grade out of legal whistleblowing protection to try and stop my whistleblowing case being heard by a court.

This wasted cost application was heard by the same London South Employment Tribunal that in July 2022 turned a blind eye to 90,000 emails being delated during one of my hearings. We have just had more of the same from this Tribunal with our wasted costs application. It refuses to engage with large amounts of our position and evidence..

Below I will set out what we have on this NHS law firm followed by the Tribunal's reasons for running a mile from dealing with it which are a shambles.

I have a plan to appeal this but for it to work I need your help. I don't think we should let these people get away with this or we should just accept just being ignored on these important issues by an Employment Tribunal. But I can do nothing alone.

Welcome to the NHS in 2025

The Health Secretary Wes Streeting says he is distressed and ashamed by what is unfolding in the NHS.

But how did we get here?

The people most likely to know about problems in the NHS and how to fix them are the staff and leaders on its frontline. 

For decades, the NHS has been allowed to ignore, discredit and then fight anyone of its staff or leaders that tells it something it doesn’t want to hear.

 A whole service industry of lawyers and management consultants has built up to profit from this activity. The end result time and time again are serious issues in the NHS never getting solved or being covered up, lives being lost, careers getting destroyed or worse and lawyers and management consultants walking away with vast sums of public money. 

We have had scandal after scandal in this country often originating from serious issues being covered up within the NHS or social care.

For whatever reason, instead of doing something about all of this when cases come before it, the English legal system tends to passively turn a blind eye whilst consuming eye watering mounts of public money.

Look where it has got us

My 10 year long whistleblowing case exposes nearly every trick in the NHS and legal system's whistleblowing playbook. From doctoring documents, private investigators, false press and MP briefings, cost threats, false records of meetings, forced public statements to destroying evidence even during a court hearing. But probably the most scandalous was the scam to remove all English doctors below consultant grade from legal whistleblowing protection to try and stop my case ever being heard by a court. 

You won't get a better example of the UK public sector cover up machine in action than what I am about to tell you below. I also don't think you will get a better chance to challenge it than this Crowdjustice campaign. 

A big part of what drives me is a desire to stop other NHS staff going through what I have gone through both in the NHS and then subsequently in the legal system.  

But ultimately, I want the the NHS to stop sabotaging itself so it can survive and succeed for all our sakes. 

If you are interested, I say more about where I am coming from on the NHS in this interview with LBC. But please also free to skip past it to the plan for doing something about all of this. 

Arguing Doctors out of Whistleblowing Protection on the Taxpayer

We now have the Judgment of our 2 day wasted cost hearing against the NHS Law firm Hill Dickinson.

Wasted costs is a special application made to recover money from lawyers as a result of their misconduct in a case.

 The application is about the scandalous attempts over 4 years to stop my whistleblowing case ever being heard by a court. This was done by arguing all English doctors below consultant grade outside of legal whistleblowing protection.

The fight between me and the NHS to oppose the removal of 54,000 doctors from legal whistleblowing protection cost the taxpayer £500k. 

My crowdfunders have generously spent £150k resourcing me to fight back. After 4 years of fighting me on this ridiculous and self-destructive point, the NHS finally backed down in May 2018 but as you will see that was not the end of the attempts to cover everything up.

How NHS Lawyers Broke Whistleblowing Law for Doctors (and their patients)

Making public money, stating things in court that are not true whilst not disclosing documents that would have exposed this is not a complicated concept. 

What happened here is so simple that It took 2 MPs just one and a half minutes to explain  to the House of Commons.

HEE have now moved to NHS England under a new name with the same leadership and still have the same power over the nation's doctors. In 2022, yet again these people escaped accountability for this case by pulling another legal stunt that was swallowed by a Judge leaving only HEE's lawyers left in the case following this wasted cost application.  

How is it even possible for a bunch of NHS lawyers to break whistleblowing law for the nation’s doctors?

UK whistleblowing law only protects people from their employer. Whistleblowing disputes that fall out of an employment relationship are not subject to whistleblowing law and the legal system just refuses to hear such cases or to put it another away;

The danger of this has been recognised so a Section of whistleblowing law (ERA S43K) allows for the definition of employer to be extended to include additional organisations or legal entities that may not be formal employers but none the less have the power to harm people in their workplace. 

The fact whistleblowing law is only an employment law is a serious flaw as it can lead to courts being misled on employment issues in order to stop whistleblowing cases being heard. This is basically what the NHS body HEE did in my case to argue me and the 54,000 doctors out of legal whistleblowing protection. 

HEE is the only NHS body in England with ultimate power over doctors' employment and careers. They came to court and denied they had this power and/or substantial influence in order to escape being caught by ERA Section 43K of UK whistleblowing law. They then blew through vast sums of public money repeating this denial in the appeal courts making it binding on the nation which broke whistleblowing law for me and 54,000 doctors for no other reason than to obstruct my whistleblowing case from being heard.

Causing a Scene 

Once HEE had factually misled the London South Employment Tribunal into removing me from whistleblowing protection they were probably  expecting me to just go away. They were not expecting a crowdfunded appeal which is what they got all the way up to the Court of Appeal. Once that happened the case automatically became about large numbers of other people. Considerable press coverage then followed including ITV News at Ten, Evening Standard, Mail on Sunday and this brilliant series of New Statesman Articles. 

This was a massive problem for the top of the NHS because most people in medicine found out false arguments had been used to break whistleblowing law for doctors which is why I was able to crowdfund the fight from 5,000 people. There was therefore a huge need within the NHS and legal system to make the HEE position about something more wholesome than misleading an employment tribunal factually to win a strike out hearing at an employment tribunal just to shut down one doctor's whistleblowing case.

Once the appeal process started HEE and it seems an EAT Judge added a legal argument to the mix. It seems to me this dysfunctional legal argument was added to the appeal to take the emphasis off the untrue factual submissions that had made denying HEE's power over doctors. The added legal argument stated that the above Special Section of whistleblowing law (ERAs43K)  that caught additional organisations with substantial influence over workers could not apply to doctors employed at NHS Trusts. This was just made up on the spot and they even claimed Parliament chose such a thing which we showed was not true from Parliamentary transcripts. . 

The obvious purpose of  ERA S43k is to ensure  unscrupulous organisations  that have the power to harm whistleblowers  and cover up serious issues cannot escape whistleblowing law by just coming to court and saying they are not an employer. This new and frankly crazy argument that was added to my case added  hundreds of thousands of agency workers and banking professionals to the 54,000 doctors already removed from whistleblowing protection by my case. This ludicrous position (all funded by the taxpayer) led to the whistleblowing charity Protect becoming a formal intervening party in the case. All this to top my whistleblowing case being heard!

The new argument won in the Employment Appeal Tribunal but was eventually rejected by the Court of Appeal.

However because HEE  continued with their false factual position denying HEE's substantial influence over doctors, the Court of Appeal were obstructed from dealing with the half of my appeal that would have definitively secured English doctors' whistleblowing protection. That was left hanging!

In early 2017, a few weeks after my victory in the Court of Appeal, I found myself with a microphone at a conference full of NHS CEOs. I challenged the then Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt on HEE's actions in the case .

 It seemed to me Mr Hunt could see how dodgy this situation was and went on to meet me. Mr Hunt then agreed to become a supportive witness for me in court which I am hugely grateful for. 

With the exception of Justin Madders Labour have been far more nervous than the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats about getting involved which I hope will change.

Our Wasted Cost Application

Our wasted cost application centres on the NHS law firm Hill Dickinson spending 4 years profiting from public money arguing doctors out of whistleblowing protection  by stating things in 3 courts that were not true factually about doctors' employment .

But there is more, they did this whilst not disclosing key  'LDA contracts' that would have exposed what they were saying (to break whistleblowing law for doctors) as not true. When these contracts were finally obtained they exposed  as untrue the further claims by the NHS and Hill Dickinson that all documents backed up their position and showed my position as fanciful (and deserving of a cost threat).

As I say, this destructive act was part of an attempt to prevent my whistleblowing case ever being heard by a UK court and was all funded by the taxpayer.

There was a further twist  that came a year after the NHS/Hill Dickinson position  collapsed after 4 years of fighting me on it. At the time of the NHS position collapsing, the NHS body HEE were blamed for the failure to disclose the so called 'hidden contracts' proving the NHS position on HEE's influence over doctors as untrue.  

However, a year after, the Journalist Tommy Greene established that it was Hill Dickinson (the same law firm making the untrue submissions in my case on behalf of the NHS) that had drafted the contracts. Tommy Greene also established that these contracts were drafted and signed the same year as the events of my whistleblowing case occurring in the hospital in Woolwich by the same HEE director that I say covered up my case.

Hill Dickinson kept quiet about this to avoid being liable for a £55k cost penalty which instead had to come from NHS funds. The £55k penalty was reported in the Mirror.

The £55k figure was a only a fraction of what my crowdfunders had spent resourcing me to fight the NHS for 4 years in defence of doctors' whistleblowing protection. 

But the key point here is why did the taxpayer pay it and not Hill Dickinson?

Making public money stating things that are not true whilst not disclosing documents that expose what you are saying is not true is not difficult to understand and we have a name for it!. 

This is one of the many examples of key parts of our position that the recent Judgment runs a mile from engaging with.

Aims of Our Wasted Costs Application - We want to Get Your Money Back

My Crowdfunders should not have had to spend years funding me to defend whistleblowing protection for the nation’s doctors at the same time as paying in their taxes for NHS lawyers to attack whistleblowing protection for the nation's doctors. 

It is equally obvious (but not to the London South Employment Tribunal apparently) that those who profited from such activity should have to give the money back both to the crowdfund and to the taxpayer.  This is particularly the case given how badly the courts have been misled in this situation.

The simple aim of this wasted cost application is to make that obvious point, hold those accountable and recover the money so it can be used to help other NHS whistleblowers on Crowdjustice. Given how much time and money our crowdfunders have put into this over the years, we  should not accept just being ignored on these obvious and important points. 

More of the Same form the London South Employment Tribunal

Although an NHS director getting up at 5am to destroy 90,000 emails before refusing to attend court is a dramatic story, it is only the tip of the iceberg of the concealment and destruction of evidence that has occurred in my case.  Computer Weekly in a further article set out the extent of the concealment and destruction of evidence which the London South Tribunal continues to turn a blind eye to. Take note of the yellow box;

Astonishingly even after the revelations in Computer Weekly,  the tribunal when dealing with the wasted cost application have ignored yet more documents being mysteriously lost by my opponents. The 'lost documents' this time are the actual signed versions of the undisclosed commissioning contract between HEE and the relevant NHS Trust in my case Lewisham and Greenwich. 

It is this contract that is plainly at the centre of the wasted cost application as it proves as untrue HEE and Hill Dickinson's submissions in 3 courts over 4 years that it was fanciful to me to assert that HEE had substantial influence over my employment at Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust. 

Not one of the HEE/HD false submissions in the ET, EAT or Court of Appeal are quoted or even mentioned in the recent wasted costs Judgment. The whole point of the wasted cost application was to account for the false factual statements in the 3 courts in light of the failure in disclosure of the  commissioning contract between HEE and Lewisham and Greenwich.

This contract shows HEE imposing terms on Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust un return for tens of millions of pounds. 

The signed versions of this contract would have revealed who had knowledge of the contracts and their email account would show contact with the relevant lawyers..

But its it is not just Hill Dickinson that has lost their copy of this signed contract, the NHS agency HEE (now NHS England) have lost theirs, Lewisham and Greenwich have lost theirs and their lawyers Capsticks don't have a copy either. 

Now back to that 'Yellow Box'. You may remember from my July 2022 hearing that the Lewisham and Greenwich Director of HR had her entire NHS email deleted during my live litigation by NHS Digital. This scandalous fact was also reported in Computer Weekly. It is hard to think of an email account in the Trust more important to my case and more likely to have a signed copy of the contract at the centre of the wasted cost application. 

My opponents and their lawyers must be laughing their heads off at the London South Employment Tribunal and their approach to evidence !

I get that Employment Judges may find it scary holding big public sector organisations to account in whistleblowing cases. I also understand how it might be hugely difficult for Employment Judges to hold fellow employment lawyers to account especially in cases like mine when those that are implicated are very senior..

Apart from it not being a good look there is something extremely dangerous about a Judge being too weak or whatever to protect a junior member of NHS staff raising serious patient safety concerns. But a judge failing to protect whistleblowing protection for the nation's doctors is on another level. I wrote an article exploring why this might be the case .

The two MPs Justin Madders and Sir Norman Lamb who are both former employment lawyers were not too scared to say what needed to be said about all of this and in particular about where all the money has gone.

And also the serious patient safety issues that started all this off;

Handling a whistleblowing case like this causes havoc in the NHS

The way this case has been dealt with has damaged doctors' trust and confidence in both the NHS and legal system for very obvious reasons. This is dangerous for everyone.

At the heart of this case is serious patient safety issues.

At the Royal Society of Medicine, I attempted in 15 minutes to explain my 10 year jungle of a whistleblowing case which you can see clip of on the below video (full talk here). The video starts with me explaining the patient safety issues  and avoidable deaths that started all this in 2014. It ends with the crazy position we have ended up at..

At the October wasted cost hearing, my witness evidence  made clear the havoc this case has caused in the wider NHS in respect of patient safety and the damage done to a doctor's ability to speak openly about serious issues. 

This damage was even acknowledged in a clearly stated position from the General Medical Council that was also provided to the Judge at the recent wasted costs hearing. The Judge has conveniently  ignored this clear evidence of the impact to the NHS and patient safety as a result of what HEE and Hill Dickinson solicitors have done in this case to undermine all doctors' whistleblowing protection. 

. 

As I write this Crowdjustice page, I have been told that the Hill Dickinson lawyer that had conduct of my case  is instructed by the NHS fighting the whistleblower at the centre of this situation (see BBC piece). 

Nothing to See Here

The recent London South Employment Judgment has decided to let those in Hill Dickinson involved in this off the hook.

The Judgment runs a mile from dealing with the evidence and facts that were clearly put to the Tribunal not just by me, but also a my top KC.

At the October wasted cost hearing, Hill Dickinson conceded that they hadn't even spoken to to all the relevant lawyers involved in all this before concluding the firm had done nothing wrong. Our closing oral submission repeated this to a shocked public gallery. 

One of those observing was the journalist David Hencke who wrote about the hearing .

This lack of curiosity at the top of the NHS and Hill Dickinson was apparently the case even after the robust and serious criticism in the House of Commons on 3 July 2019. The Hill Dickinson response to our disclosure request on this was that there was no kind of internal or external investigation commissioned to establish the facts. This is despite the debate in Parliament and strong views of the 2 MPs being covered in the legal press and then the mainstream press. 

We are asked to believe not so much as an email was exchanged between the NHS and Hill Dickinson or within Hill Dickinson on all of this even when the firm was being criticised in Parliament and then in the national media. My witness statement for the wasted cost application questions this,

How does the London South Tribunal Justify Not Dealing with the Serious Issues in my Wasted Cost Application

Playing for Time

Our wasted cost application was lodged in 2019 the same year as the debate in Parliament on 3 July 2019 exposing many of the facts. After a a couple of years of not responding, things finally started to move in October 2022.

After years of frankly messing around, a final hearing of my wasted cost hearing was ordered by the  robust and straight talking Employment Judge Self. At this preliminary hearing, Judge Self threw out a rather desperate strike out attempt from Hill Dickinson - they do love a strike out application!.   

Judge Self clearly set out in his Judgment what needed to happen in the final hearing of the wasted cost hearing with clear reasons.  The Judge Self Judgment also gave a helpful summary of the situation and is a great place to start if you want to read the legal papers.

Judge Self acknowledged;

"It is arguable that depending on the evidence which is presented about the circumstances that HD’s conduct could be impugned to such an extent that there was a misrepresentation / fraud "

 The Judgment of Judge Self was covered in Byline Times.

So what happened in October Wasted Costs final Hearing?

Instead of dealing with the serious issues in my wasted cost application, the Tribunal has looked for a way out and chosen to rely on a wasted cost clause in the contentious 2018 settlement of my whistleblowing case.

This settlement was induced following multiple cost threats from the NHS made against me and a wasted cost threat against my own former lawyers. These tactics were used whilst I was under oath giving evidence. These cost threats were later denied by the NHS despite clear written evidence of them. The evidence of the cost threats was reported in the Telegraph and Private Eye. MPs also made this evidence clear in a letter to the Health Secretary . 

The reality of this settlement was also exposed in the House of Commons in that 3 July 2019 debate

Despite this clear evidence from multiple sources, the London South Employment Tribunal does not accept cost threats were made and maintains that the settlement was made properly and freely by me with no cost threats involved. This makes what I am about to tell you even more absurd..

I decided to protect all NHS lawyers in the case from wasted costs arising from their misconduct (apparently) 

To get rid of my wasted costs application the Judge finds, that my 2018 settlement agreement contained a clause that apparently showed that in addition to wanting to settle all my whistleblowing claims about cover up, detriment and career loss, that I must have also intentionally and separately decided to protect Hill Dickinson Solicitors from a wasted cost application arising out of their alleged legal misconduct in my case. This is of course ridiculous and would be quite a surprising thing for me to do.

Paragraph 93b of the recent wasted cost  Judgment states;

The Claimant was professionally advised by solicitors and Counsel at the time of entering into that agreement, and the concept of wasted costs would have been very familiar to them if not him. There is no ambiguity in the drafting, and there is no reason to suppose that the Claimant, with the benefit of professional advice, did not understand the costs protection this provision afforded the Second Respondent’s representatives, including HD.

The Judge doesn’t even attempt to explain why me and my former lawyers would suddenly choose to protect Hill Dickinson Solicitors from wasted costs during the final hearing of my whistleblowing case in October 2018.  

There is also the matter of how I could possibly have predicted in 2018 (without Mystic Meg and her crystal ball) what a journalist would find in 2019 to implicate Hill Dickinson in wasted costs. It is this new information that is the stated factual basis of our wasted cost application as set out in Parliament on 3 July 2019.

Even if for some reason I wanted to give Hill Dickinson a shield to wasted costs, as stated the facts set out above by the 2 MPs that arose in 2019 about the hidden contracts drafted by Hill Dickinson were not known about back in 2018 so I could not have decided to protect Hill Dickinson from those facts however generous I was feeling. 

I made this point abundantly clear in unchallenged evidence in October but have just been ignored by the Judge. You can read more about how my KC used my evidence on this in our submissions which clearly win us this point on Hill Dickinson's so-called shield to wasted costs. For the lawyers among you apply the dicta of Lord Bingham in BCCI v Ali [2001] to this situation as we plan to on appeal. 

So despite all this, the Judge has decided that none of the NHS lawyers accused of serious misconduct by me and 2 MPs from facts that arose in 2019 can be held to account. This is because I apparently made a conscious choice in 2018 to protect them from those facts (without a crystal ball).

The Judge then uses this bold assertion to gloss over our evidence of legal misconduct before concluding that no NHS lawyer has done anything wrong. This is done without reference to most of our stated position and evidence.

Suddenly the Hidden Contracts Don't Matter

Without any logical explanation, the Judge has found that because I had other documents, in particular a document called the Gold Guide, that the hidden contract proving HEE's ultimate influence over Lewisham and Greenwich doesn't matter.

This ignores the plain fact that for the 4 years, when I didn't have the hidden contract obtained by the Journalist Tommy Greene, HEE and Hill Dickinson were able to argue in 3 courts (and be believed by Judges) that my position that HEE had substantial influence over doctors was fanciful and that all documents in particular the Gold Guide backed their position up. 

The Judge has also ignored the plain fact that when I found even an outdated version of the hidden contract between both HEE and the Trust's predecessor organisations, the NHS/HEE position collapsed with a voluntary £55k payment from the NHS of my legal my costs. This payment shows you how worried they were. This collapse happened days before we were going to argue this in public and was reported in the Mirror. 

So the Tribunal in order to get to the destination that the hidden contracts do not matter have ignored all of the above including HEE and HD's written submissions in 3 courts!

Full video of the virtual Protect panel discussion between me, the MPs Dame Margret Hodge, Kevin Hollinrake and barrister Mukhtiar Singh

Suddenly saying the hidden contracts don't matter is an another example of the London South Employment Tribunal changing its view on things outside of an appeal process. Judge Self in his Judgment for the strike out hearing sets out clearly why the NHS lawyers needed to explain why the contracts were not disclosed in light of what they were arguing factually over 4 years.

Now this Tribunal says the hidden contracts don't matter any more.. If they don't matter how on earth did I get HEE and their lawyers who had been fighting me for 4 years on this point to suddenly give up days before a hearing and pay my crowdfund £55K?

The Legal Regulator

The legal regulator has taken no regulatory action. The investigation that was performed only occurred after pressure from an MP, several doctors and a Bishop in the Church of England. During a meeting with me, the SRA Director of Legal conceded that the investigation did not interview or take a statement from a single lawyer involved. It is anyone's guess how they made their decisions. Sir Norman Lamb has challenged the SRA's CEO in this letter as did a member of BMA Council. Several other MPs have challenged the SRA on my case including the then Cabinet Minister Nadhim Zahawi in this letter. Somehow, the SRA feel able to just ignore these challenges even when they were covered in the Times.

A Point to Ponder

Imagine an NHS law firm getting exposed in the House of Commons wasting vast sums of public money removing doctors from whistleblowing protection by misleading courts and then nothing being done about it by the legal system

Did Hill Dickinson accuse you of misusing crowdfunds?

During the Hill Dickinson defence of the wasted cost application, instead of dealing with the facts of their conduct, Hill Dickinson made a number of false claims to damage and discredit me. These were easily proved as false with this Smear and Misinformation submission which quotes the relevant smear from Hill Dickinson and then shows why it is false with the relevant document. The Judge has just ignored this submission and its significance. The Judge has also not dealt with a baseless claim from Hill Dickinson that I misused crowdfunds. Crowdjustice have assisted me in exposing this claim from as false. Clearly a law firm making a number of false claims in their defence of a wasted cost application is significant if they can be proved as false.

Instead of dealing with these underhand tactics and false claims, the Judge has chosen the easy way out and they are just absent from the Judgment that pushes the narrative of no one within Hill Dickinson or HEE doing anything wrong.

About Me and My Individual Whistleblowing case 

My name is Dr Chris Day. I have been fighting an NHS whistleblowing case for the last 10 years and the case is still showing no signs of being over. 

This picture of my family was taken 10 years ago when all this started - they have had to walk this road with me over the years.

The London South Employment Tribunal have allowed the NHS to turn what should have been a straightforward whistleblowing case, lodged by a doctor in 2015  into a circus that is still ongoing in 2025. 

Read David Hencke's Tribunal of the Absurd piece here

For those that want a bit more detail, my article "The Employment Tribunal will see you Now Doctor"  takes you through the legal papers for the main whistleblowing case.. 

These antics have cost the taxpayer over a million pounds and prevented serious patient safety issues being dealt with and has also damaged other doctors' legal whistleblowing protection.

The way this case has been handled has not been done in private, large numbers of NHS staff and patients have read the papers and attended my hearings. A powerful example of this is Dr Bob Gill a local GP challenging the Board of Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust on what he saw from the public gallery in June/July 2022.

From 2015 to 2021 this case was supported by 5,000 crowdfunders. They are the reason I am still standing. You can read our first ever campaign here from 2015.

Since 2021, the British Medical Association have been supporting and funding my main whistleblowing case and have done huge amounts of work trying to resolve all of this for me and my family and are still working hard on it. 

Part of this process are two appeals that are coming before the EAT on 1-2 July 2025 for a final hearing (read the grounds of appeal here). I am hugely grateful to the BMA for standing with us on this and to my crowdfunders that funded the entire case from 2015-2021 prior to this BMA support. Without my crowdfunders there would not have been a surviving whistleblowing case for the BMA to take over.

Whilst the BMA are funding the work to resolve my main whistleblowing case, the work to hold HEE and their lawyers to account for removing whistleblowing protection from the nation's doctors is still being funded by my crowdfunders. 

Why Challenging All This Is Important

Lawyers that act for the NHS and other public services benefit from large sums of public money and often have huge power and influence over serious matters of public interest. 

The law firm Hill Dickinson is trusted by the NHS as one of its go-to law firms for employment, coroner cases and negligence cases so it is problem for everyone if there is no accountability 

Health Education England or its new name is charged with governing and commissioning the training and employment of doctors and other healthcare staff. It has huge power over the futures of NHS staff. It is important that the top of this organisation cannot be allowed to just avoid accounting for their actions (which they seem to expect to be able to do). The Employment Tribunal seems very reluctant to hold a Government agency and senior employment lawyers to account which is a massive problem for us all.

Next Steps

With your help we will appeal this wasted cost Judgment to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

This will shine a spot light on what has happened and if it succeeds will return money from the lawyers responsible to Crowdjustice for other whistleblowing cases.