Cedar in Law delegation at Number 10 Downing Street. From Left to Right: Sharon Wheeler, Joycelene Scutt, No 10 doorman and David Hencke
Cedaw in Law returned to Downing Street yesterday to deliver letters to Sir Keir Starmer asking him to intervene in the latest battle to secure justice for 50swomen.
The delegation is repeating their case for mediation and recompense for the discrimination and maladministration over the big rise in the women’s pensions age for 50swomen. One of the letters which would have gone to DWP lawyers also reiterated that all women’s groups should be consulted under the review promised by Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, not just a private arrangement between WASPI and the ministry. WASPI pulled out of their judicial review case to challenge the DWP over maladministration last week accepting a £180,000 payment in full and final settlement from the DWP.
Tonight Joanne Welch, the organiser for CedawinLaw, Jocelynne Scutt, the Australian judge who chaired a tribunal into the issue, and myself, a patron of Cedaw in Law and a lobby journalist, will appear on Salford City Radio, in the constituency of Rebecca Long Bailey, the Labour chair of the All party group on State Pension Inequality for Women.
The link to hear it is here and it is on Ian Rothwell’s show between 6 and 7 pm.
Joe Milner ex Loch Employment Law now Brightstar Law Ltd
Three months after this blog first reported (see here) unusual conduct by a leading employment law firm, public records reveal just how far that conduct went — and how the courts may have got it very wrong.
High Court records confirm that on 8 October 2025, Loch Employment Law Ltd launched a breach of contract claim (Case No. BL-2025-001254) against a group of former employees and entities, including a newly formed legal outfit called Brightstar Law Ltd.
Among the seven named defendants is Joe Milner, formerly a director of Loch Employment Law and Claudia Yorath former Group People Director for Loch Group.
Strikingly, Milner and Brightstar have fired back. Part 20 counterclaims have been filed not just against Loch Employment Law, but against its parent company Loch Associates Group Ltd, and even against Pamela Loch, the firm’s founder, in her personal capacity.
The public filings suggest not a polite departure — but a full-blown legal and commercial rupture.
Pamela Loch -founder of law firm
The Timeline That Should Have Stopped Everything
Official records from Companies House show that Milner’s directorship at Loch Employment Law ended on 24 July 2025. The company filed the required TM01 termination form the very next day.
And yet — a full 35 days later, on 28 August 2025, a legal document known as an N260 Statement of Costs was filed with Milner’s signature, identifying him as “Partner” of Loch Law.
That same day, a strike-out application brought in Loch Law’s name was allowed by the High Court. Costs were awarded against the claimant. The judge, Master Eastman, made no reference in his ruling to the fact that the signatory had no authority to act on behalf of the firm.
Four days later, on 1 September 2025, Milner became a director of Brightstar Law Ltd — a direct competitor.
A Warning Ignored
What makes this situation particularly troubling is that the issue was flagged to the court in advance.
According to public filings, the claimant — who had no legal representation — had:
Submitted evidence from Companies House showing Milner’s removal
Filed detailed submissions alleging that Milner’s filings were unauthorised
Cited Yonge v Toynbee [1910], a century-old case establishing that documents filed by solicitors without authority are void
Provided metadata analysis suggesting that at least one signature may have been reused from unrelated proceedings.
Despite these warnings, the strike-out application was allowed to proceed. The claimant’s submissions appear to have been entirely disregarded. There is no indication that the court considered the authority of the solicitor filing the costs claim — or whether the underlying application was even valid.
The Legal Consequence: A Void Strike-Out?
Lawyers consulted about the case (who are not connected to the parties) note that if Milner lacked authority, the strike-out application was not merely procedurally defective — it was void.
It is a foundational principle of English law that someone without standing or instructions cannot bind a firm. If the court had taken proper account of this, the claim might never have been struck out — and costs might never have been awarded.
That it was allowed to proceed suggests a serious failure to scrutinise who was behind the filings.
Vindicated — But at What Cost?
The claimant, Edward Romain, who now runs Blind Justice, a community interest company supporting litigants in person, appears to have been correct in every material respect, Milner had no authority and the strike application should not have been entertained.
Yet the cost order remains. The ruling stands.
In the view of legal observers, this raises a deeper question: How many other strike-outs, cost rulings or orders are being granted without the court verifying the authority of the legal representative?
When professional parties operate in bad faith — or when firms collapse mid-case — the risks to access to justice are real. The consequences fall heaviest on litigants without lawyers.
A Case That’s Still Unfolding
The High Court dispute — Loch Employment Law Ltd v Brightstar Ltd & Ors (BL-2025-001254) — remains live as of 2 December 2025.
Whether regulators or courts will revisit the earlier strike-out ruling is unclear. But one thing is certain: a litigant was right, and the system failed to listen.
UPDATE: Following publication of this post one issue has been raised by John Halford, Waspi’s lawyer from Bindman’s. He says it is not true that originally you needed permission for both parties or would have to pay £300 to attend the case management hearing. I have checked this back and staff at the administrative court did advise people to do this and told people If no agreement then you need to complete N244 Application form at a cost of £300 to register.This was overruled by the judge on December 2who made it an open hearing. I passed this back to Mr Halford only to find he had blocked me sending a reply. What extraordinary behaviour from a lawyer.
A long awaited decision on the six year battle for redress for the 3.6 million remaining 50s women has been promised by the Department for Work and Pensions by the end of February next year – as part of a deal agreed between the ministry and Waspi Ltd.
Royal Courts of Justice
Under the deal Waspi has dropped its judicial review claim due to be heard next week and accepted an offer by the DWP to pay the Waspi company £180,000 towards its legal costs in bringing the claim.
Most of the manoeuvring to obtain this arrangement has been behind the scenes in meetings between lawyers on both sides. As a result there will be no public hearing in the courts of the arguments where both sides would have put their case under the watchful eye of the Parliamentary Ombudsman who was an interested party. Waspi had been challenging Pat McFadden, the DWP secretary of state, over his decision not to award any compensation following the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings of partial maladministration over the communications informing the women.
05/07/2024. London, United Kingdom.Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Pat McFadden, poses for a photograph following his appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
Then rather dramatically Mr McFadden on November 11 change his mind after the discovery of an earlier document which had been overlooked for 18 years revealing that attempts to inform the women had failed. Waspi’s lawyers Bindmans are said to have found it -presumably in the exchange of documents before the hearing. See my coverage of the document on this sitehere.
Before the hearing was dropped Waspi and DWP had the DWP arranged a case management hearing on December 3 with the most extraordinary terms allowing either side to block who would be allowed to attend or have to pay over £300 to obtain the right to attend.
This amounted to secret justice and it is no wonder on the day before the hearing the judge, Mr Justice Swift put out a national statement giving his directions for the case which made it clear it was a public hearing that anybody could attend and there were arrangements for people to hear it remotely.
This scotched the plan for a semi secret hearing so that evening it is clear that lawyers from both sides must have met and agreed to abandon the hearing the next day and Waspi Ltd agreed to pull out alongside the DWP from the two day judicial review.
It is my speculation that it will mean that some arrangement has been agreed under ” a nod and a wink” that the ministry will offer some form of compensation to some of the women. Certainly a seasoned lawyer like John Halford at Bindman’s ,would not have agreed to this without some hint or his client ,Waspi, would have been left in a very precarious position.
Waspi has not been alone in making representations to the government. Enter Edward Romain, a former whistleblower who has set up Blind Justice, a community interest company, to take up injustice cases and has joined joined forces with Cedaw in Law, to fight the case for the women on both discrimination and maladministration. I covered his case against Glyndebourne in an earlier article here. The case is now settled but it also discloses some strange behaviour by lawyers.His website is blindjustice.org.uk .
The day before the planned case review he delivered a recorded letter to Sir Keir Starmer and copied to Pat McFadden staking CedawinLaw’s claim to participate in any mediation process.
He followed this up with a powerful letter to Mr Oliver Towle, a senior lawyer at the Litigation Directorate for the DWP with a copy to the Treasury solicitor.
The letter asks the lawyer to confirm that following the court order that CEDAWinLAW and all other materially affected groups will be included in the consultations from the outset and clarifications of the intended structure and timeline for stakeholder engagement. The letter states
CEDAWinLAW represents the interests of 3.5 million women affected by State Pension Age changes.
The organization has made formal legal submissions and engaged with public authorities over four years.
It has pursued mediation and presented evidence to Parliament, highlighting ongoing advocacy efforts.
It also cites legal precedents quoting past cases covering natural justice, legitimate expectations, Wednesbury unreasonableness ( ie irrational responses), civil procedure rules and international law.
It concludes:”We respectfully submit that any reconsideration that does not include CEDAWinLAW would be procedurally flawed and open to future challenge. We remain available to assist constructively and can provide additional documentation or legal submissions if required. We look forward to your confirmation and to contributing meaningfully to the reconsideration process.”
One curious fact, actions by WASPI and CedawinLaw appear to have come to attention of the Chinese government over the last five months.Altogether I have received over 76,000 hits from China from Beijing and 40 other cities across China data scraping my blogs on the pensions issue.
China has one of the lowest retirement ages in the world. Women can retire at 50, men at 60. I wondering whether the Government is thinking of raising it and is looking at the opposition to it in the UK. President Putin tried to raise the pension age for women some time ago but had such opposition from the Babuskas that he backed down -probably the only reversal he made as President.
The full letter to the government lawyer can be read here.
NHS Resolution solicitor overlooking hospital doctors under investigation. An AI image illustrating the situation facing hospital doctors in the NHS
Following my blog on the secret process using NHS Resolution to help hospital managers discredit whistleblowers I decided to ask the advisory body a series of questions on its operations using the Freedom of Information Act.
What emerged was extremely revealing. NHS Resolution hides in its annual report how many hospital doctors are involved by lumping them together with dentists and pharmacists. But the breakdown revealed through FOI reveals it is almost exclusively targeting doctors to advise trusts on how to handle them.
It shows that in the last financial year it advised in cases involving 1168 doctors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. And the number of cases would be higher – as a number have multiple complaints from managers against them. This compares with 53 dentists and under 5 pharmacists. Indeed the pharmacists involved are so few – it won’t give me an exact number for fear of identifying individuals.
The PPS was last audited in 2019 and the organisation says it was then considered to be adequate and. effective. A more recent review in July this year by Dr Penny Dash looked just at the patient safety and learning role of the organisation and not wider issues.
Nor does NHS Resolution check whether it is given accurate information by managers. It said:” our role is to provide impartial and expert advice which is aimed towards supporting the local management and resolution of performance concerns. We are not a decision-making or an investigative body – in all cases, any decisions about the ongoing management, employment or contractual status of the practitioner rests solely with the healthcare organisation.”
In other words it is there solely to support health managers – who have no duty of candour – and it tries to include doctors by saying managers should tell them about their request for advice. In fact managers can and do ignore this as there is no requirement for them to say anything to the doctor they are investigating. So without hearing the doctor’s case it cannot be genuinely impartial. Also should a practitioner object to the partial advice given by a health manager they are ignored and the body continues to deal with the health manager.
NHS Resolution has not carried out any audit on the effect on doctors who are subject to complaints but it does do occasional research into problems arising on a very small scale. One example in its Insight Publication series last year was looking at whether ethnic minority doctors were badly treated in the NHS.
Involving just 11 doctors it said:”Most participants felt discriminated against based on their ethnicity and/or where they qualified. They felt this was reflected in the way their cases were handled by both their employer and Advice, and the higher rates of concerns raised against practitioners from ethnic minority backgrounds.”
Not surprisingly there was a lot of ignorance of how NHS Resolution’s advice service worked – given that health managers needn’t tell them about it. Again NHS Resolution’s solution was to give advice to managers which they need not take up. The full report is here.
Then there is the question of the phrase, performance. Is it a misnomer? NHS Resolution advice service does not look into the question of performance by doctors – relying on hospital manager for that – and it does not employ people qualified to do so. Many are solicitors, human resources staff and employment law experts and are not qualified to know when say a complex heart operation went wrong or the details of paediatric care. Indeed from doctors who have contacted me the trust often cites uncooperative behaviour and not working well with colleagues as part of its case.
Taken with earlier articles on the role of the General Medical Council a disturbing picture emerges which shows the hospital doctor is always at a disadvantage while the responsible officer – usually the medical director – holds all the cards – using NHS Resolution for advice and reporting the doctor to the GMC. Yet neither body is necessarily equipped to handle this and in NHS Resolution’s case, it is toothless to influence decisions by trusts. It can help to easily ruin a doctor’s career and even ban him or her for life for continuing their careers.
There seems to be a wholly unregulated sector covering NHS Resolution, the GMC and the trusts themselves and certainly no accountability. Patients have no idea how this is handled -yet their safety should be paramount in the NHS. And while NHS Resolution says it works under the direction of the Department for Health and Social Care my research shows it is not clear who regulates them.
If ever there was a case for reform of both systems, now is the time for something to be done.
Glum whistleblower at an Employment tribunal. Picture created through AI
A research report published this July by the new Labour government has painted a devastating picture of the failure of the culture of the whistleblower system in the United Kingdom.
The report, originally commissioned by the Tories under Rishi Sunak, and undertaken by researchers at Grant Thornton, one of the big accountancy firms, pulls no punches. It reveals how whistleblowers, whether in industry, the NHS and other public bodies, see a failure by the courts, employers, and even those appointed to help them, to protect them.
The sad news is the report, commissioned by the Department of Business and Trade, looks like remaining on the shelf – and the one improvement planned by the justice ministry could make matters worse. It plans to appoint 50 new employment tribunal judges to handle an increase in whistleblowing cases, among other issues, following the implementation of the new Employment Rights Act. For those who follow my blogs, they will know, they are more than often part of the problem, not the solution.
For a start whistleblowers found the terms used to describe whistleblowers as vague and confusing.
The report notes that terms like “reasonable belief,” “public interest,” and “worker” are seen as subjective, vague, inconsistent, and narrow, creating uncertainty about whether protections actually apply. One whistleblower expressed surprise when an Employment Tribunal decided their concerns didn’t meet legislative requirements despite their employer telling them they did.
The majority of whistleblower participants reported feeling victimized by their employer after blowing the whistle. The research found that many whistleblowers believed the framework doesn’t provide effective protection in practice. The “protection” offered is essentially just the right to seek redress after harm has already occurred, not proactive prevention of retaliation.
Multiple barriers for whistleblowers
Multiple barriers existed for whistleblowers when their case came before an employment tribunal. These included:
Resource imbalance: They lacked time, money, knowledge, and skills compared to their employers Mental toll: The process was described as complex, draining, and requiring resilience many didn’t have Evidential burden: Proving detriment was directly related to their disclosure was extremely challenging Delays: Tribunals experience significant delays
Time limits: Strict deadlines created additional barriers
Unfair treatment: Limited access to evidence and risks around non-disclosure agreements
Lack of trust: Many didn’t believe tribunals would be balanced or deliver meaningful
Nor did whistleblowers find people designated to help them such as regulators much good.
They found they could not protect them from detriments or victimisation. Some were conflicted particularly where there had been regulatory failure.
Several whistleblowers stated it was “not easy” to blow the whistle internally: They found:
Little faith in the process based on previous experience
Fear of retaliation after hearing stories from others
Restrictions from non-disclosure agreements
Conflicts of interest when those receiving reports were implicated
Lack of independence in investigations
Concerns not being properly investigated or addressed
No feedback or perceived remedies
The report describes the huge tolls on whistleblowers. At employment tribunals,phrases from whistleblowers included: public execution,exhausting, beyond difficult, miserable. complex, ardous, horrible and abusive, soul destroying,toxic and unsafe.
Litigants in person fared worse with descriptions that they were not treated respectfully by judges, lawyers and other parties and that they were not impartial.
Many stated they would not blow the whistle again due to negative experiences
Cases that involved international jurisdictions were even more complicated with slow co-operation from countries and regulators abroad.
The report makes suggestions for change. These are:
create a central body for whistleblowing
ongoing engagement and research to assess and monitor all aspects of the GB framework
efforts to improve effectiveness should be multifaceted and monitored
improved mental health support for individuals
legal advice and a degree of financial security while the claim progresses
consideration of disincentives and incentives, for example implementation of a United States style reward system
I contacted the ministry about the report:
A Government spokesperson said:
“The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen protections for whistleblowers reporting sexual harassment at work and extend time limits for bringing tribunal claims from three to six months.
“We are also fixing the employment tribunal system by ensuring more cases are resolved before reaching them and recruiting more Employment Judges.”
They said that didn’t regard the report’s conclusions as firm recommendations and many of the suggestions were outside the remit of the ministry.
At the end of July I published a scathing report from the House of Commons Justice Committee on the appalling state of the dysfunctional county court system. MPs were so appalled that they demanded a root and branch inquiry into the system to address its myriad problems – huge waiting times to hear cases, court buildings infested by rats, lack of disabled access and a chaotic and incompatible digital system to handle cases. You can read it again here .
Now we have the ministerial response. And what a tepid, pathetic and apology for an answer it is from Sarah Sackman KC. It even incorporates a potential ” pork barrel” issue with somehow one of the few courts now undergoing modernisation is in her own Finchley and Golders Green constituency in North London.
She rejects the main finding of the committee – the call for the inquiry to deal with the problem.
She said: “Rather than focusing on a root and branch review of the County Court, the Government is keen to focus on taking tangible and practical steps to improve the operation of the County CShe rejects the main finding of the committee – the call for the inquiry to deal with the problem.
She said: “Rather than focusing on a root and branch review of the County Court, the Government is keen to focus on taking tangible and practical steps to improve the operation of the County Court – which will benefit everyday users – without further delay. We are already seeing these measures bear fruit with improvements to the timeliness of claims that got to trial, improving call waiting times, growth in small claims mediation and further improvement to case management and file transfer systems.”
Her so called improvements include a reduction in waiting times for Small Claims cases from 50.5 weeks a year go to an amazing 49.2 weeks up to July. A fantastic reduction of of 1.3 weeks – I am sure she being cheered to the rafters for that. While those waiting longer face a 72.4 week delay compared to 79 weeks a year ago. I am sure they appreciate that.
Meanwhile many litigants are facing wasted costs for travel, legal fees and subsistence to attend hearings that are ” overlisted ” or as the result of poor management of the courts and MPs thought they should be compensated. But for Sarah Sackman ” over listing ” is fine and she rejected any money to reimburse claimants.
Probably the most interesting revelation is the paucity of the programme to modernise the courts to bring them up to 21st century standards. Only three courts are currently being modernised- Norwich, Taunton and Barnet and there are plans for Reading and Blackpool.
The Barnet court project got funding in October 2024 – three months after Sarah Sackman had been appointed solicitor general and two months after she became justice minister. I may be being unfair to her but I do find it curious that of all the courts to get modernise first is in her constituency.
Barnet County Court, Regents Park Road, Finchley
When you compare this with the long list in the justice committee ‘of courts that don’t even provide wheelchair access – only Taunton is being modernised. So for disabled people there is no hope of admission to Mansfield County Court; Brentford County Court; Darlington County Court ;Edmonton County Court; Hertford County Court and Lewes Combined Court Centre to name a few.
She does accept a number of reforms to improve digital communication in county courts but again I wonder if these will just add to the different schemes already in operation. On litigants in person, she accepted that there should be more granular data on their cases and also that guidance for litigants should be improved . But I wonder how far this will go given the heavy criticism from MPs on how difficult it is for litigants in person to understand procedure.
Frankly this is a disappointing response from the new Labour government to tackle the enormous problems in the court service and Sarah Sackman as a KC should be well aware of this. But it seems to reflect the general public mood that Labour is failing to make an impact.
Pat McFadden, poses for a photograph following his appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
The 18 year old research report that derailed work and pension secretary Pat Mc Fadden and forced him to review his decision to pay nothing in compensation to 3.6 million 50s born women is a comprehensive and damning document. No wonder he didn’t go into details in his Parliamentary statement this week on what the Labour government then did not do to inform the women and the first cohort of men who faced a rise in the pension age.
The key finding by researchers on the exercise of sending 16 million letters with automatic pension forecasts was that it was a “ systematic failure to reach the target populations most in need of provision.”
The research is very thorough. It took over a year to do it. It involved covering 16 million letters. Researchers interviewed 11,690 people. It involved both the women in the target 50-59 age group and men aged 59-64. ( 2007 was the year it was revealed that both men and women faced the pension age going up to 66). But it also involved men and women aged 20-49 to see if they were aware of the pension changes.
The first fact discovered was that out of the 16 million letters sent out, staggeringly 11 million went unread.
The report said The APF ( automatic pension forecast) was least effective among those who most needed it:
Those with no pension knowledge: 16% readership
Those without pension provision: 25% readership
Younger people: 20-24% readership
Lower socioeconomic groups: 30% readership
This represents a systematic failure to reach the target populations most in need of intervention.
All the letters did was reinforce people better off people’s decision to take early action to safeguard themselves.
It said This suggests the APF largely reached people who would have acted anyway, providing little marginal benefit.
There was also a Self-Selection Bias.
Those who read the APF were systematically different:
64% already had basic/good pension knowledge
33% already had pension provision
Higher income and socioeconomic status
The APF appears to have reinforced existing advantages rather than closing gaps.
It concluded:” “This research provides rigorous evidence that mass information provision, while well-intentioned, has minimal impact on pension knowledge or retirement planning behaviour. The APF initiative reached 16 million people but meaningfully engaged only about 5 million, with measurable behavioural impact likely affecting fewer than 1-2 million.
It lays down three fundamental truths.
Information Is Not Enough Knowledge deficits are not the primary barrier to retirement planning. The research shows that those with the greatest information needs were least likely to engage with information provided.
Existing Advantages Compound The APF was most effective among those who already had pension knowledge, existing provision, higher incomes, and greater financial capability—reinforcing rather than reducing pension inequality.
Behaviour Change Requires Architecture, Not Just Information The minimal difference between APF and control groups demonstrates that passive information provision cannot drive behaviour change for complex, long-term decisions like retirement plan.
The report did tell ministers what they should do and why it was needed – that included specifically targeting the groups who did not respond in the future and running a systematic campaign to raise awareness of the change. As the Parliamentary Ombudsman found the result was maladministration.
DWP in ministerial flux
The ministry at the time was in flux. The year 2007 saw Peter Hain replaced by John Hutton – now both peers – as work and pension secretaries. The minister responsible for pensions changed as well from Mike O’Brien ( long left Parliament and working as a lawyer) and Dame Rosie Winterton.
There was zilch coverage in the media about its findings – the Iraq War was raging at the time – and it is not clear whether the report was kept for internal use anyway.
What will the impact be? First Pat McFadden says the review would not necessarily lead to the government paying out compensation. Secondly it could affect the judicial review brought by WASPI on the failure to act on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report and pay out compensation, as he said he had informed the high court about his decision to review the issue.
This could torpedo the hearing due on December 9 because judges may not want to hear the case if the minister says he is reviewing the situation.
As I have stated many times this would not have happened as CedawinLaw , the other main group campaigning for restitution for women, has said if they had applied instead for mediation and a court ruling to enforce it. But sadly WASPI has always refused to work with other groups wanting to create an impression in the media that they are the only people concerned about the issue.
Also the issue of past discrimination against these women as well as maladministration could have been included in the case. But Waspi do not seem to be bothered about this.
Not so transparent McFadden
There is one other issue to raise. Pat McFadden made a big issue of being transparent in his statement. But in fact he made it difficult for journalists to access this report. Normally when a minister makes a statement – and it will the case in the Budget – all the papers are available in the Vote Office to lobby journalists. In this case this paper was only available in the House of Commons library which can only be accessed by MPs. I would like to thank the anonymous MP who got me a copy.
Since then the library have allowed the report to be available to the public. The link is here.
A stormy tribunal case around Bradford City Hall. An AI generated image.
The Employment Tribunal system is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century yet still fails to deliver on open justice or provide what should be a basic expectation: a recording or transcript of public proceedings. Many claimants navigating the painfully slow-moving appeals process cannot obtain recordings because their original hearings predate the introduction of the recording system. The only alternative—the judge’s notes—will never be released, according to the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office.
Labour MP Anna Dixon recently raised this as a serious issue again at a Public Accounts Committee meeting in Parliament. Officials were unable to ,provide an answer.
Now a new problem has emerged: corrupted recordings. This latest case involves a 2024 hearing at Leeds Employment Tribunal between former Bradford Council employee Noreen Taylor and the authority, presided over by Judge Neil Maidment. Taylor had been employed as a contracted employment hub coach in the Children’s services Skills House team
Judge Maidment dismissed Taylor’s case, where she had raised serious concerns including safeguarding failures affecting children, notably by one staff member; data protection breaches involving children; misuse of European funds and recruitment irregularities. The recruitment irregularities emerged after evidence and were accepted by the respondents. Applicants were encouraged to apply for two jobs – a business manager and programme services manager – that had already been filled a month earlier.
Taylor said she had suffered years of detrimental treatment by senior staff there, many of whom have now left. But it was not until the first day of a 14 day trial that the council accepted 9 out of 13 protested disclosures.
Astonishingly, when she stated her lawful right to contact her MP and report these issues to police, she was warned against doing so.
Judge described claimants racism fears as ” jovial fun”
Taylor, who is from an ethnic minority background, was singled out in a business meeting with her white British colleagues. During the meeting, she was repeatedly referred to as “your inner chimp, Noreen your chimp,” and everyone laughed—except Taylor. She later confirmed via texts and phone calls with her colleagues that she had been visibly upset and distressed by these comments. The judge did not agree and described it as ” jovial fun”.
This incident occurred after Taylor had raised whistleblowing concerns, in what appeared to be an attempt to shut her down. The business manager, who had been involved in recruitment irregularities, was supported by the Assistant Director of Children’s Services. This detrimental racial treatment of Taylor continued for months, ultimately affecting her health. The manager later explained in an internal meeting that his reference to The Chimp Paradox was intended to refer to a behaviorial psychology book, not as a racist remark aimed at Taylor
Taylor, who was experiencing disability-related health issues, due to the onslaught of bullying and harassment within Children’s services was ultimately dismissed on ill health capability grounds, this was after she was kept as a NIL pay employee for years until the council covered up and prevaricated, intimidated, harassed and even trespassed into her house shown on CCTV and to the ET Judges at Leeds.
The judge ruled that her dismissal was due to ill health, and not her whistleblowing activity. Despite her protected disclosures being linked to a long list of detriments, she was subject to exclusion, harassment, gas lighting when she raised concerns. She was removed from the business team and her IT access and her work email address was stopped.
She was a litigant in person pitched against the fourth largest local authority who had the money and access to barristers to fight her. It took the authority from late 2020 until the 14 day trial in April 2024 to accept any of her protective disclosures. But she was determined to continue for the sake of getting vulnerable children justice.
During the preliminary hearings, she says one of the judges referred to the head of legal team on first name terms and did not recuse himself. Later it was found out the judge was employed by the council as a consultant. This judge threatened to strike out all her whistleblowing claims at the request of the council’s lawyers but did not succeed. She had been unable to get the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office to investigate her complaint, because it came too late as she had only three months to complain.
In May 2024 Taylor says the judge appeared to do a U turn by portraying her in a negative way after accepting at a preliminary hearing there was a case to answer particularly over the safeguarding issues.
Transcripts of hearing withheld for 2 years
Taylor immediately decided to appeal but encountered months of obstruction and delays in obtaining the hearing transcript. She needed the transcript to challenge evidence given by a staff member (and to lodge a complaint about the conduct of the judge) Even after Conservative MP Robbie Moore who represents Keighley and Ilkley became involved the claimants request for a transcript was sent again in December 2024 but clerks gave varying excuses making each and every one more suspect, yet from May 2024 to end of 2025 it will be almost 2 years the transcript has been withheld by Leeds ET by current Regional Judge D N Jones.
For a July Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing, she enlisted veteran whistleblower Alison McDermott to act as a McKenzie friend.
At the Rule 3.10 hearing—which determines whether an appeal can proceed—Taylor explained her inability to obtain the transcript. The EAT judge was sympathetic, telling her: “I don’t have the power to order the lower courts to produce it because it’s an administrative matter, but I can direct a letter to the acting regional judge explaining you have an appeal and that the transcript is required. I am content if you’re applying to adjourn today’s hearing until the trial transcript is provided.”
Taylor has now been informed she cannot have the transcript because the recording SENT BY LEEDS ET is too damaged. Acolad, which processes court recordings, told her: “Unfortunately, our back office advised the disc was too damaged to extract any information as it wasn’t possible to upload the audio from the disc to the system.”Acolad have emailed and written to Leeds ET on numerous occasions and have been ignored for months since July 2024.
Without the transcript, Taylor cannot proceed with her appeal application. This extraordinary situation points to either gross incompetence or negligence at Leeds Employment Tribunal—another example of a broken system. Staff should know whether a recording is functioning properly. Taylor says: “It is outrageous that a whistleblower who raised serious concerns about child safeguarding can be denied my right to appeal because the tribunal failed in its basic duty to maintain a proper record of proceedings. This isn’t just administrative failure—it’s a perversion of justice that makes a mockery of the entire tribunal system.
How can justice be seen to be done when there is no verifiable record of what was said? This goes to the heart of the rule of law and the principle that courts must be accountable and transparent.”
But for the whistleblower it is another dead end and an impediment to get any justice.
Meanwhile the justice department continues to obfuscate over the provision of court records to claimants.
On 20 March 2025, Anna Dixon MP asked the Ministry of Justice two questions at the Public Accounts Committee. Simple questions. Pre-notified questions.
“How can people receive a fair trial if a record of proceedings is not made available to them?”
“How can judges block access to those records when they themselves are being accused of misconduct?”
Dr Jo Farrar, the Permanent Secretary, talked about “court productivity.” Gemma Hewison, Director General, said: “We’ll have to write to the Committee.”
They couldn’t answer. Because the answer is indefensible.
Posted on by davidhencke Last year I reported on the tragic death of talented 25 year old Gaia Young 17 hours after she was admitted to University College Hospital with severe headaches. Her mother Lady Dorit Young was subject to an entirely unsatisfactory and unsympathetic coroner’s inquest by Mary Hassell which let the hospital off the hook saying the cause of death was unknown. You can read my original blog here.
The coroner blocked Lady’s Young’s attempt to get independent evidence from a neurologist but since then she has managed to get an independent neuro-radiologist and neurologist’s report and UCLH have opened a further review into her tragic death.
The protest vigil on September 15 was sparked by the findings of the neuro radiologist who examined the CT scans of Gaia’s brain. It showed quite clearly even to a lay person, according to Dorit ,that the first scan taken and I quote ” there is a gross cerebral and cerebellar swelling. There is effacement meaning ( ” literally meaning ‘ rubbed out’: these fluid spaces should be visible but cannot be seen).”
This is the opposite to the consultant radiologist who examined Gaia’s scan who said: “The ventricles and basal cisterns are patent…Impression No acute intracranial finding.”
Gaia Young
The independent consultant’s diagnosis was confirmed by Dr Charles House, the medical director, when he met Dorit and compared Gaia’s scan with a normal brain scan.
The consultant radiologist who examined this first scan was Dr Ayman Mahfouz, who was on duty at UCLH at the time Gaia was admitted. Dr Mahfouz, has a private practice in Harley Street.
His entry on the private practice site says he has specialist expertise in breast, gynaecology and general imaging.
He undertakes all aspects of breast imaging including mammographic (plain, contrast enhanced and 3D), Ultrasound, MRI and CT diagnostics. He performs all ultrasound and stereotactic breast related procedures including vacuum excision.
Dr. Ayman Mahfouz is a designated appraiser for doctors at UCLH and has previously been elected as a regional representative for doctors in training at the Royal College of Radiologists. At the time of Gaia’s admission he held the role as Emergency Imaging Lead for UCLH.
Gaia’s mother would like to contact him about the scans but so far he has not responded. She does not know what pressure he might have been under at the time or how much time he took to examine the scan. I did ask UCLH about whether he wanted to say anything about this but there was no response to my question.
UCLH did issue a response about the review into Gaia’s death.
A UCLH spokesperson said:
“We met with Lady Young and apologised that Gaia’s care fell below the high standards we strive to provide. We sympathise greatly that the cause of her beloved daughter’s death four years ago is still unknown.
“We are committed to learning from external opinion and scrutiny and have commissioned a range of independent experts to explore further the circumstances surrounding Gaia’s death. We agreed with Lady Young the scope of the reviews and the experts who will undertake them.
“We await the outcomes of all the external reviews to understand if further lessons can be learned and acted upon.”
Dorit’s vigil last month caused more than a flutter on Harley Street. The clinic at 99 Harley Street called the police and also alerted its own security guards. When the one man patrol car turned up with flashing blue lights the policeman turned out to be incredibly polite and said no-one was breaking the law so long as the entrance to the premises and pavement was not blocked.
The friendly security guards curious about the case
Then two security guards turned up, saying they had been informed by a member of the public that large numbers of people were demonstrating there. It turned out to be just three people and they were remarkably friendly and polite when they heard about the circumstances. They didn’t mind having their pictures taken.
The one person who didn’t turn up was the doctor and one of his private practice colleagues politely remonstrated with us that this was not the right way to do things and Dorit should arrange a meeting with the hospital. It was pointed out to him she had been reprimanded by the Trust on various occasions for trying to contact clinicians having cared for Gaia. She never received an answer. The Trust never offered a meeting with any of these doctors.
Gaia’s case has been taken up by an Islington councillor, Dr Hannah McHugh. She wrote a strongly worded opinion piece for her local paper, The Islington Tribune. You can read ithere.
She says:” As an Islington councillor, I’ve supported Lady Young in this painful journey. It has revealed something of concern to us all: when things go wrong in our healthcare system, the path to truth is too often long, difficult, and unjust. Tragedies become injustices.”
Slowly but surely the facts about Gaia’s death are coming to light. But so far it has taken four years to achieve with no help from coroner Mary Hassell.
This to me is a general problem across the NHS. Rather than acknowledge to patient’s relatives that mistakes have been made, trust managers initially go on the defensive and are prone to cover up what went wrong and who was responsible. It is only people with guts and determination like Dorit who are prepared to fight for years until they get answers that the true facts start to come to light.
UPDATE; The ex coroner and Lady Dorit Young held a second vigil at a conference organised by the Royal College of Radiologists in London this month to bring it home to the profession the need for the very careful reading of scans by radiologists. Here is a picture of their vigil accompanied by a police officer.
Dorit Young and an ex coroner on a vigil in Harley Street.
Last year I reported on the tragic death of talented 25 year old Gaia Young 17 hours after she was admitted to University College Hospital with severe headaches. Her mother Lady Dorit Young was subject to an entirely unsatisfactory and unsympathetic coroner’s inquest by Mary Hassell which let the hospital off the hook saying the cause of death was unknown. You can read my original blog here.
The coroner blocked Lady’s Young’s attempt to get independent evidence from a neurologist but since then she has managed to get an independent neuro-radiologist and neurologist’s report and UCLH have opened a further review into her tragic death.
The protest vigil on September 15 was sparked by the findings of the neuro radiologist who examined the CT scans of Gaia’s brain. It showed quite clearly even to a lay person, according to Dorit ,that the first scan taken and I quote ” there is a gross cerebral and cerebellar swelling. There is effacement meaning ( ” literally meaning ‘ rubbed out’: these fluid spaces should be visible but cannot be seen).”
Gaia Young
This is the opposite to the consultant radiologist who examined Gaia’s scan who said: “The ventricles and basal cisterns are patent…Impression No acute intracranial finding.”
The independent consultant’s diagnosis was confirmed by Dr Charles House, the medical director, when he met Dorit and compared Gaia’s scan with a normal brain scan.
The consultant radiologist who examined this first scan was Dr Ayman Mahfouz, who was on duty at UCLH at the time Gaia was admitted. Dr Mahfouz, has a private practice in Harley Street.
His entry on the private practice site says he has specialist expertise in breast, gynaecology and general imaging.
He undertakes all aspects of breast imaging including mammographic (plain, contrast enhanced and 3D), Ultrasound, MRI and CT diagnostics. He performs all ultrasound and stereotactic breast related procedures including vacuum excision.
Dr. Ayman Mahfouz is a designated appraiser for doctors at UCLH and has previously been elected as a regional representative for doctors in training at the Royal College of Radiologists. At the time of Gaia’s admission he held the role as Emergency Imaging Lead for UCLH.
Gaia’s mother would like to contact him about the scans but so far he has not responded. She does not know what pressure he might have been under at the time or how much time he took to examine the scan. I did ask UCLH about whether he wanted to say anything about this but there was no response to my question.
UCLH did issue a response about the review into Gaia’s death.
A UCLH spokesperson said:
“We met with Lady Young and apologised that Gaia’s care fell below the high standards we strive to provide. We sympathise greatly that the cause of her beloved daughter’s death four years ago is still unknown.
“We are committed to learning from external opinion and scrutiny and have commissioned a range of independent experts to explore further the circumstances surrounding Gaia’s death. We agreed with Lady Young the scope of the reviews and the experts who will undertake them.
“We await the outcomes of all the external reviews to understand if further lessons can be learned and acted upon.”
Dorit’s vigil last month caused more than a flutter on Harley Street. The clinic at 99 Harley Street called the police and also alerted its own security guards. When the one man patrol car turned up with flashing blue lights the policeman turned out to be incredibly polite and said no-one was breaking the law so long as the entrance to the premises and pavement was not blocked.
The friendly security guards curious about the case
Then two security guards turned up, saying they had been informed by a member of the public that large numbers of people were demonstrating there. It turned out to be just three people and they were remarkably friendly and polite when they heard about the circumstances. They didn’t mind having their pictures taken.
The one person who didn’t turn up was the doctor and one of his private practice colleagues politely remonstrated with us that this was not the right way to do things and Dorit should arrange a meeting with the hospital. It was pointed out to him she had been reprimanded by the Trust on various occasions for trying to contact clinicians having cared for Gaia. She never received an answer. The Trust never offered a meeting with any of these doctors.
Gaia’s case has been taken up by an Islington councillor, Dr Hannah McHugh. She wrote a strongly worded opinion piece for her local paper, The Islington Tribune. You can read ithere.
She says:” As an Islington councillor, I’ve supported Lady Young in this painful journey. It has revealed something of concern to us all: when things go wrong in our healthcare system, the path to truth is too often long, difficult, and unjust. Tragedies become injustices.”
Slowly but surely the facts about Gaia’s death are coming to light. But so far it has taken four years to achieve with no help from coroner Mary Hassell.
This to me is a general problem across the NHS. Rather than acknowledge to patient’s relatives that mistakes have been made, trust managers initially go on the defensive and are prone to cover up what went wrong and who was responsible. It is only people with guts and determination like Dorit who are prepared to fight for years until they get answers that the true facts start to come to light.
Westminster Confidential 