A senior employment judge has intervened to try and force whistleblower consultant cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad, who is now ill, to attend the Croydon costs hearing on Wednesday where she will face a £180,000 bill after losing an employment tribunal case.

Judge Omar Khalil has ignored a letter from her GP warning that she is under severe mental stress after years of appearances before employment tribunals, being referred to the General Medical Council which exonerated her but then lead to an internal inquiry run by the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust which tried to brand her as ” unfit for purpose” as a human being because it had to say she was an excellent doctor.

Her disclosure that the trust covered up an ” avoidable death” of a heart patient at the trust by not reporting it to the coroner was confirmed by Dr Richard Bogle, the head of cardiology , during an employment tribunal hearing.

But judge Tony Hyams-Parish, mindful that there are no records kept of tribunal hearings, expunged this disclosure in his judgement which rejected all her claims.

Dr Usha Prasad has asked for a postponement because she doesn’t feel well enough or capable of defending herself against expensive lawyers hired at the taxpayers’ expense by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust. She hasn’t the money now to employ a barrister to defend her at the hearing.

Dr P Bailey, her GP in Wakefield has written to the costs tribunal saying “”She is experiencing physical and emotional signs of distress…. she does not feel in an appropriate state of mind at present to represent herself in the process currently.”

“… I would be grateful if her current mental state was taken into account regarding scheduling and potential postponement.”

The regional judge and tribunal are refusing to take any notice of the GP’s plea.

In reply Lynn Head, for the tribunal says today:

“Acting Regional Judge Khalil has asked me to write to the parties.
The claimant’s application to postpone the Costs hearing listed for 23 and 24 August 2023 is refused.
The Hearing has been listed since 8 March 2023 and the dates should thus have been reserved from receipt of that notice.
“The Tribunal has previously addressed that an outstanding EAT appeal relating to liability is not a reason in itself not to proceed with a Costs Hearing. The question of enforcement of any Costs Order (if made) is a separate consideration pending an outstanding appeal.
“The claimant’s request for notes has also received judicial consideration previously, more than once. No details have been proved of the claimant’s important meeting.

“The claimant could have provided dates of unavailability of his counsel (shortly after the Tribunal indicated it would be listing a Costs Hearing (17 February 2023), as the respondent did, but the claimant did not do so.
The Tribunal has considered the claimant’s medical evidence dated 18 August 2023 but in the light of the listing of this Hearing since 8 March 2023, the claimant could and should have made arrangements for alternative representation if her previous Counsel was unavailable. A postponement would cause a considerable delay before the panel could reconvene. That is not an overriding objective. The Liability Hearing took place in November 2021.”
At this stage it is not clear whether Dr Prasad can or will attend the hearing. The presiding judge will then have to decide what to do.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.