Former nurse banned under ‘draconian’ order following 20 years of litigation

A former nurse who has been ‘litigating or attempting to litigate’ for two decades has been restricted from bringing civil proceedings unless given permission by the High Court after being found to have a ‘persistent desire to relitigate issues without any prospect of achieving any alternative outcome’.

Lord Justice Dove and Mrs Justice Thornton made a civil proceedings order against Alvida Harrold, who was previously employed by North Bristol NHS Trust before her dismissal in 2005. She was struck off by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NWC) in 2009.

Harrold, the judgment said, ‘has been litigating or attempting to litigate her dismissal and strike-off since at least 2006’ and had been ‘largely unsuccessful'.

Since May 2016, the former nurse has been subject to a general civil restraint order (GCRO) which remains in force, having been extended on six occasions. The attorney general now applied for a civil proceedings order (CPO), described in the judgment as a ‘draconian order’.

During the application hearing, Harold requested an adjournment which was refused. This was found to be ‘part of a longstanding pattern of conduct’, the judgment said. The judges also refused a second, third and fourth application to adjourn. After giving their ruling on the fourth application, Harrold left the hearing.

Granting the CPO, the judges said: ‘We have no doubt that Mrs Harrold has an honest and deep-seated belief that she has been the victim of injustice both in relation to her initial dismissal from the trust’s employment but also her subsequent striking off by the NMC.

‘However, it is clear from the findings of very many judges over the course of the history of Mrs Harrold’s involvement in legal proceedings that she has regularly pursued proceedings or applications which are without merit and misconceived and demonstrate a persistent desire to relitigate issues without any prospect of achieving any alternative outcome.

‘Mrs Harrold has regularly brought proceedings which are vexatious.’ The judges added that the extent of Harrold’s ‘unmeritorious litigation’ had placed a ‘significant burden on the court’.

‘It is clear that Mrs Harrold has, in essence, never been prepared to accept the conclusions of the court in particular in respect of the applications and extensions of the GCRO. We are in no doubt that this is a case in which it is appropriate for a CPO to be made.’