Jessica Blackburn senior associate Capsticks Pic Credit:London Portrait photographer David Woolfall

Jessica Blackburn is the senior solicitor and driving force behind the bid by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust(ESHUT) to get record £180,000 costs against Dr Usha Prasad, the whistleblower cardiologist who was dismissed by the trust for her disclosures.

As reported earlier a hearing like this is extremely rare, as in 99.95 per cent of all employment tribunal cases no complainant pays any of the employer’s costs – much to chagrin of big employment law firms like Capsticks.

She was educated at the highly selective Wallington High School for Girls and graduated from the University of Southampton Law School in 2014. She took two postgraduate legal practice courses at the private University of Law in London and got a distinction. She was a trainee solicitor at RadcliffesLeBrasseur , a law firm now part of Weightmans. She took a job as a qualified solicitor with Capsticks in 2018 and was promoted to a senior associate three years later. A native English speaker, among the languages she has is elementary knowledge is Yoruba, a West African tribal language. She also played a senior role in Capsticks celebrations of Black History Month last year.

At Capsticks she specialises in defending health trusts and the police and cites dealing with whistleblowers as one of her specialities. She is also involved in advising trusts running  complex doctor cases under the national framework, Maintaining High Professional Standards in the Modern NHS – internal hearings like the one already held by ESHUT over Dr Usha Prasad chaired by Claire Mclaughlan that came to the bizarre decision that she was “unfit for purpose”.( see my blog here and here.)

Her top tribunal case cited on her page is one heard by Judge Auerbach in 2021 between Mr Abgeze and Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust ( judgement here) over the controversial issue of people’s rights in zero hours contracts. Mr Abgeze, who was on a zero hours contract, was suspended and then reinstated by the trust. But because he was on a zero hours contract he was unable to apply for shifts and claimed compensation. Judge Auerbach threw out his claim.

She writes: “This will be a welcome decision to NHS Trusts, and other organisations that have similar casual worker arrangements.”

Certainly as this week’s cost hearing approaches there is a big stand off between her and Dr Usha Prasad who under increasing stress and suffering health issues and asked for a postponement. But it looks like that either Jessica Blackburn doesn’t believe her (despite a doctor’s note) or does not want to believe her and doesn’t want her schedule for the historic case delayed.

Forensic details of Usha Prasad’s finances demanded by Capsticks for the health trust

This is the letter she sent demanding details of Dr Prasad’s finances to make sure she will be ready to pay the £180,000.

“We write in respect of the hearing to determine the Respondent’s costs application against you listed by the Tribunal for 23 and 24 August 2023. The Trust has incurred in excess of £150,000 plus VAT in legal costs in defending your claims (2 and 3), which were all dismissed.  

On 19 June 2023, we wrote to you in the following terms:

“As part of the Tribunal’s consideration of the Respondent’s costs application, the Tribunal may take into account your financial means. Therefore, please can you disclose by 23 July 2023, any evidence of your means if you intend to rely on this at the costs hearing, so that this information can be contained within the costs hearing bundle.”

To date we have received nothing. We are not clear whether this is because, if you are ordered to pay costs, that your position is that you would be financially able to meet any order made by the Tribunal, or, on the other hand that you have elected not to disclose any information. 

We remind you that under Schedule 1,  rule 84 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the Tribunal may (but is not required in all circumstances) take into account a paying party’s ability to pay. 

Ability to pay

84.  In deciding whether to make a costs, preparation time, or wasted costs order, and if so in what amount, the Tribunal may have regard to the paying party’s (or, where a wasted costs order is made, the representative’s) ability to pay.

If you intend to argue (or might do so, depending on the level of costs awarded) that you would not be financially able to meet the terms of any costs award, if so ordered, the Respondent requests you urgently provide supporting information and evidence of the same.  

This should include:

·         information about your present level of income and remuneration as well as of what you have earned since the liability judgment; any property you currently own (whether in whole or in part, whether land, buildings or otherwise), any investments, and the content of any bank / building society or similar accounts and any other information relevant to your ability to pay an award of costs. This information should cover assets worldwide not only in the UK. 

·         You should also provide information and evidence regarding your financial commitments such as rent/ mortgage. 

·         Evidence to support the information provided should be provided. 

·         As regards your employment related earnings, pay slips, P60s, tax returns or record of invoices paid through agencies or similar and any current or recent contract of employment, or for your services. 

·         As regards bank accounts, savings and investments, including ISAs, this should include copies of your recent bank (etc) statements. Downloaded statements or screenshots from a bank (etc)’s website are acceptable. 

·         The Tribunal will need to understand your current financial commitments, therefore if you have any loans, mortgages, or other regular payments made such as rent or utilities, documents in support of the same (e.g. mortgage statement, loan agreement/payment schedule, rent payments) should be provided. 

·         Where you own one or more properties you should identify the approximate current value of the property concerned and the balance of any mortgage. 

·         Please can you also confirm your current employment/engagement status, including whether the number of hours worked and whether that if permanent or temporary (and if so on what basis) and your residential address.

Threat judge will be told if she does not provide the information

The Respondent will draw this letter to the Tribunal if the information and evidence requested is not supplied prior to the hearing but where you contend (whether in writing, or at the hearing) that your means should be taken into account by the Tribunal. It is important that the Respondent understands your position in good time prior to the hearing. In addition, we urgently request confirmation of your position regarding your financial means in order to address this issue in written submissions, the absence of which is delaying completion.

We look forward to receiving confirmation of your position, together with the requested documentation where applicable, as a matter of urgency.”

When she sent the doctor’s note Jessica Blackburn ignored it. You can see what detail Capsticks want – and other whistleblowers facing cost hearings say they have not received such detailed demands.

I informed Jessica Blackburn I was proposing to write a profile of her. Capstick’s press office replied that she could not comment at this time.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential so I can continue my forensic reporting.