Abstract Radio

Make no mistake some household names in the small world of employment law have got themselves into a right mess dealing with my whistleblowing case (see below excerpt of my evidence sent to the EAT for last month's appeal) The situation causing all this havoc is so simple; One set of lawyers (my former lawyers) have committed to writing a number of ordinary and wasted cost consequences made against me if I continued my whistleblowing case in 2018. The NHS and their lawyers deny that these cost threats were made. They did this to courts, MPs and the press. The stakes are high as the NHS rely on a letter from the managing Partner of Capsticks sent to their Board following the alleged cost threats being set out in Parliament and the Telegraph Newspaper. I say these cost threats were used to force me to settle and then to force me to make an agreed public statement saying the NHS acted in good faith in my case. I literally have in a Tribunal statement the following from my former barrister Chris Milsom about how the agreed statement was forced. “an impasse was reached on the terms of the joint statement, HEE in particular became more emphatic on the prospect of a cost application at this juncture and Mr Moon stated that the wording of the agreed statement must accept that individuals employed at the Respondents acted in good faith towards Dr Day as a ‘red line’ in negotiations. I communicated this fact to Dr Day and his wife" Multiple Judges have ignored this clear evidence and implied that I was making up the cost threats; I have now had 3 EAT Judges that flatly refuse to acknowledge the clear and serious conflict of evidence between the lawyers. The chasm in evidence is between 2 KCs, 2 big NHS law firms and my own former legal team and is about something as important as how an NHS whistleblowing case settled. I kid you not, I have had 3 hearings with 3 separate EAT Judges that all confirmed in open court that they knew the lawyers involved, followed by some sort of tribute speech about their positive experience of them. On one shambolic occasion the Judge even said she knew that every single one of these lawyers would have acted properly. All the Judges chose not to engage with the evidence and the simple point that all the lawyers telling the truth was not an option given the evidence. This is probably the likely reason so much of the evidence has been destroyed in my case including those 90,000 emails and the entire NHS email account of the NHS instructing client. In any other court case, if the Judge suddenly announced they knew one of the key actors subject to serious allegations, then indicated their positive view of the person, that would surely be the end of the Judge's involvement. This has now happened to me 3 times in the EAT with no consequence Will we get more of the same from the EAT with last month's appeal, we will find out when my EAT Judgment is out ? More on that here lnkd.in/eGfYexrC