KB-2025-BHM-000174 - [2025] EWHC 2263 (KB)

Shortly before HHJ Owen’s decision, on 21^st June 2025, the Claimant issued this claim in the High Court in Birmingham by an application dated 19^th June seeking to set aside HHJ Owen’s order of 16^th June to adjourn a hearing on 23 June. He relied upon the Particulars of Claim filed in the County Court and his Skeleton Argument in support of an application for an interim injunction to restrain the Defendant from concluding an MHPS investigation; in other words, precisely the same injunction that he had sought before the County Court. But he also submitted a ‘Supplementary Consolidated Submission’ in support of an application for interim relief and judicial intervention and various other documents.

HHJ Kelly on 1^st July 2025 directed the Claimant to provide by 4^th July written confirmation as to what pre-action remedies he was seeking, a draft of the interim remedy order he sought and in so far as he was applying for an interim remedy before a Claim Form was issued, a witness statement explaining why the matter was that urgent. This appears to have prompted the Claimant to file a Claim Form in this High Court claim, which states that he seeks:

(1)

“Urgent interim injunctive relief restraining the Defendant from conducting, progressing or relying upon any MHPS process pending final determination in the Employment Tribunal claim. No MHPS process or its possible consequences or its possible consequences, including any subsequent GMC process against the Claimant shall proceed until the GMC has fully investigated the Claimant ’s referrals.

(2)

Setting aside the County Court’s order dated 23 June.

(3)

Orders compelling the Defendant to investigate and report on various matters to do with Dr Rose.

(4)

A declaration protecting whistleblowing rights.

(5)

Removal of Dr Rose as MHPS case manager.

(6)

What further alternative relief as the court deems just.”

In reply to Mr Keen’s Skeleton Argument for this hearing the Claimant’s ‘Consolidated Master Supplementary Reply Statement’ clarifies the relief he seeks, which I summarise:

(1)

An interim injunction to stay and suspend all MHPS-related processes, investigations, interviews or adverse actions and to refrain from initiating continuing conduct in breach of the Equality Act and Employment Rights Act.

(2)

To set aside the costs order of HHJ Owen on 23^rd June made in the Claimant’s absence.

(3)

To require the Defendants to file statements by Dr Rose, Dr Robinson and others dealing with various matters.

(4)

To restrict the departure of various people from the Trust.

(5)

To provide disclosure in relation to various matters.

(6)

To refer the Claimant’s concerns to external authorities.

(7)

To make case management directions.

Therefore, (1), (2), (5) and (7) overlap exactly with the orders HHJ Owen either has made or declined to make in the County Court proceedings, whilst (3), (4) and (6) seek additional relief, although as I explained to the Claimant as a litigant-in-person, none of the latter is the sort of relief the High Court would typically order, or arguably even could order.