2 BMA Backed Appeals

Last week, we submitted a second Notice of Appeal to the EAT in respect of the June 2022 hearing of my whistleblowing case which you can read below. This appeal to recover the BMA’s costs will run along side our first and main appeal on the substantive hearing. The main appeal was lodged in December 2022. We are still waiting to hear from the EAT. However If you wish to read the Notice of Appeals, I recommend reading the second costs appeal before the first. The costs appeal is found below on this page and the link below will take you to the main appeal.

Appeal to the EAT 22 December 2022

Second Appeal on Costs

We submitted an application to recover the BMA’s costs as a result of multiple acts by Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust of destruction and concealment evidence during and before the June 2022 hearing of my whistleblowing case.

Surprisingly, the costs Judgment makes no mention of the very essence of our application which was that multiple acts of destruction and concealment of evidence by the NHS prolonged the hearing at the BMA’s expense – this was literally the whole point of the application. There is no mention at all in the cost Judgment of the acts or concealment and destruction of evidence which was our basis for the cost application . Our appeal sets out again the destruction and concealment of evidence that occurred but is simply ignored in the costs Judgment.

A local South London GP, Dr Bob Gill understood the significance of the above and set this out at a Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust Board Meeting. So if Dr Gill can understand how serious this situation is why can’t the London South Employment Tribunal?

Instead of dealing with the above conduct from the Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, the same London South Employment Tribunal that ruled against me in the June 2022 case have made new findings on my own conduct that were not made in the main Judgment of the June 2022 hearing and are not based on any evidence. They have literally been made them up with no evidence or even findings from the main Judgment to substantiate them. It seems this was done to avoid having to deal with the conduct of Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust in respect their multiple acts of destruction and concealment of evidence. We make this point in our appeal;