A former nurse who made ‘wholly inappropriate and unjustified allegations of wrongdoing’ against lawyers has been banned from bringing proceedings for two years by a High Court judge, who said regulators must be ‘astute in identifying litigants who abusively use [the] regulatory process’.
Alvida Harrold was previously employed by North Bristol NHS Trust, which dismissed her in December 2005. She was struck off by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) in October 2009, later unsuccessfully appealing against that decision at the High Court in 2016.
But she has continued to make ‘allegations of dishonesty or discrimination on the part of anyone who opposes her position’, including against lawyers representing the NMC and the trust, Mr Justice Saini said in a ruling today.
He extended a general civil restraint order made against Harrold in May 2020 for a further two years, preventing her from issuing claims in the High Court, county court and employment tribunal without the permission of a judge.
The former nurse, who did not attend the hearing at which Saini decided to extend the GCRO, has triggered ‘lengthy regulatory processes before the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board which have shown the complaints to be wholly without merit’, Saini added.
Harrold complained about Adam Solomon QC – who represented the NMC and the trust – to the BSB, falsely accusing him of ‘lying and misleading the court’ and demanded that her claims be investigated by Dame Victoria Sharp, the president of the Queen’s Bench Division.
Saini said: ‘The evidence amply demonstrates that [Harrold] will continue to exploit any opportunities to challenge previous decisions made against her. This has been, and continues to be, a drain on the resources of the court and has significant time and cost implications for the trust and the NMC. Substantial costs orders remain unpaid.’
Harrold also made a succession of complaints to the SRA and BSB about solicitors from Fieldfisher and DAC Beachcroft, which represented the NMC and the trust respectively, as well as Solomon who represented both applicants – all of which were rejected.
Saini – who said the complaint against Solomon was ‘plainly vexatious and misconceived’ – was critical of the BSB, saying: ‘I am surprised that the BSB felt unable to determine her complaint summarily given her previous vexatious complaints to the BSB.’ He added the NMC and trust ‘are right to argue that her only reason for attacking the legal representatives is to further vex and harass the applicants’, saying: ‘I will not dignify her more recent allegations of wrongdoing … but they are essentially repeated allegations of the most serious wrongdoing. They have no foundation in fact.
‘This case is a good example of the need for regulators of legal professionals to be astute in identifying litigants who abusively use [the] regulatory process in order to pursue complaints about the outcome of legal proceedings as opposed to any genuine claims of professional misconduct. It is important that summary processes be in place to deal with such situations.’
