LoginSubscribe Now
Follow Us
Sign up to our free newsletter
Solicitors Journal LogoInforming the legal profession since 1856

Find the knowledge you need from the SJ library of over 20,000 legal articles

Search now
Solicitors Journal Logo
  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports
  • AI Search
  • Digital Edition
  • Subscription Options
  • Advertise with Us
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
Solicitors Journal

Informing the legal profession since 1856.

Follow us

Topics

  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports

About

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • FAQ
  • Guide to Authors

Subscribe

  • Subscription Options
  • Digital Edition
  • Free Newsletter

Editorial

editorial@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Subscriptions

subscriptions@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Advertising

Advertise with usadvertising@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

© 2026 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal

ISSN 0038-1047  ·  Images: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors

Terms and ConditionsCookie PolicyPrivacy PolicyPLS Clear logoCopyright & permissions
Peter StefanovicPeter Stefanovic

Lawyer, Vlogger, Commentator, Peter Stefanovic & Co

Junior doctors need our help and they need it now

15 Mar 2016News
Share:
Junior doctors need our help and they need it now

By Peter Stefanovic

Peter Stefanovic calls on the legal profession to help fund junior doctors' legal challenge to contract imposition

A group of junior doctors have launched a fundraising campaign through Crowdjustice to fund a legal case to challenge the imposition of a new contract on junior doctors which is unfair and unsafe for doctors and patients.

Last month, the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told parliament that he would impose the revised terms and conditions on junior doctors in August after two months of negotiations failed to end the long-running and bitter dispute.

I have always been a vociferous advocate against the government's plans to impose the new contract: no elected government should be allowed to bully and intimidate 53,000 people into doing something which is not safe. At its heart, that is what the junior doctors' contract dispute is about. We have to decide whether we wish to live in a democracy or a dictatorship. If we choose democracy, we must support our junior doctors in this fight.

The group of junior doctors, which includes Dr Ben White, Dr Nadia Masood, Dr Fran Silman, and Dr Marie-Estella McVeigh, has instructed Bindmans LLP to investigate a potential legal action on its behalf. It has already raised a preliminary fund of more than £50,000 with the aim of establishing a working case fund in the region of £250,000. Crowdjustice will review applications and ensure the funds raised are spent appropriately. The group needs donations, no matter how small, to set up a 'fighting fund'.

Judicial review

The British Medical Association (BMA) is already taking action, which includes a judicial review on the grounds that the health secretary has failed to carry out an equality impact assessment and escalating industrial action. But this independent legal action would be significantly broader in scope with a far-reaching judicial review on the detrimental impact of the new contract, not only on patient safety but on the very stability of the NHS.

You cannot stretch five days of junior doctors, who are already at breaking point, over seven days and expect it to work: it's simple common sense. There is no more money and there are no more doctors. It's not rocket science to see that the health secretary's plan does not add up. Let's also not forget that we have a shortage of nurses, too. However you look at this, under the new contract junior doctors will be working longer and unsafe hours. That's bad for both doctors and patients.

This is not just about doctors. The outcome of this dispute will affect every man, woman, and child in this country, and the very future of the NHS. I for one will not fight on the wrong side of this. It's time for the legal profession to pick a side and make a stand. I have made a donation to the fighting fund and urge all my colleagues in the legal profession to do the same. These courageous people need our help as they stand against a government which believes it can bully and intimidate its way to what it wants. We have to put a stop to this.

The Crowdjustice donation page can be found here.

Peter Stefanovic is a partner at Simpson Millar

Latest Articles

A group of junior doctors have launched a fundraising campaign through Crowdjustice to fund a legal case to challenge the imposition of a new contract on junior doctors which is unfair and unsafe for doctors and patients.

Last month, the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told parliament that he would impose the revised terms and conditions on junior doctors in August after two months of negotiations failed to end the long-running and bitter dispute.

I have always been a vociferous advocate against the government's plans to impose the new contract: no elected government should be allowed to bully and intimidate 53,000 people into doing something which is not safe. At its heart, that is what the junior doctors' contract dispute is about. We have to decide whether we wish to live in a democracy or a dictatorship. If we choose democracy, we must support our junior doctors in this fight.

The group of junior doctors, which includes Dr Ben White, Dr Nadia Masood, Dr Fran Silman, and Dr Marie-Estella McVeigh, has instructed Bindmans LLP to investigate a potential legal action on its behalf. It has already raised a preliminary fund of more than £50,000 with the aim of establishing a working case fund in the region of £250,000. Crowdjustice will review applications and ensure the funds raised are spent appropriately. The group needs donations, no matter how small, to set up a 'fighting fund'.

Judicial review

The British Medical Association (BMA) is already taking action, which includes a judicial review on the grounds that the health secretary has failed to carry out an equality impact assessment and escalating industrial action. But this independent legal action would be significantly broader in scope with a far-reaching judicial review on the detrimental impact of the new contract, not only on patient safety but on the very stability of the NHS.

You cannot stretch five days of junior doctors, who are already at breaking point, over seven days and expect it to work: it's simple common sense. There is no more money and there are no more doctors. It's not rocket science to see that the health secretary's plan does not add up. Let's also not forget that we have a shortage of nurses, too. However you look at this, under the new contract junior doctors will be working longer and unsafe hours. That's bad for both doctors and patients.

This is not just about doctors. The outcome of this dispute will affect every man, woman, and child in this country, and the very future of the NHS. I for one will not fight on the wrong side of this. It's time for the legal profession to pick a side and make a stand. I have made a donation to the fighting fund and urge all my colleagues in the legal profession to do the same. These courageous people need our help as they stand against a government which believes it can bully and intimidate its way to what it wants. We have to put a stop to this.

The Crowdjustice donation page can be found here.

Peter Stefanovic is a partner at Simpson Millar

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|PLS LogoCopyright & permissions
Spencer West wins key appeal case
Solicitors Journal

Spencer West wins key appeal case

Spencer West's victory in the Court of Appeal overturns a USD $2.5 million ruling against FMC Trading
News19 Jun 2026
SRA seeks to enhance risk identification
Solicitors Journal

SRA seeks to enhance risk identification

The SRA has launched a consultation to improve notification requirements for law firms in order to enhance risk assessment strategies
News19 Jun 2026
Legal departments become strategic business partners
Solicitors Journal

Legal departments become strategic business partners

The 2026 Law Department Management Benchmarking Report highlights legal departments’ evolution into strategic partners, providing data-driven insights that support efficient resource allocation and operational agility
News19 Jun 2026
Good Law Project v Reform UK: the data rights case that tests who can sue on behalf of others
Solicitors Journal

Good Law Project v Reform UK: the data rights case that tests who can sue on behalf of others

High Court refuses to strike out data subject access claim against Reform UK, finding the Good Law Project has arguable standing as a representative body.
Court Report19 Jun 2026
Hattons of London v Knightsbridge Collection: the coin dealer data theft that a CRM system and a cloud provider helped unravel
Solicitors Journal

Hattons of London v Knightsbridge Collection: the coin dealer data theft that a CRM system and a cloud provider helped unravel

Seven former employees found liable for conspiracy and breach of confidence after secretly building a rival business on stolen customer data.
Court Report19 Jun 2026
Pfizer v Competition and Markets Authority: the phenytoin saga enters its third decade with the CMA's original decision restored
Solicitors Journal

Pfizer v Competition and Markets Authority: the phenytoin saga enters its third decade with the CMA's original decision restored

Court of Appeal reinstates the CMA's finding that Pfizer and Flynn abused their dominant position, but wipes out the CAT's retaken decision on procedural fairness...
Court Report19 Jun 2026
Dexia v Comune di Torino: how hindsight and low interest rates became the basis for a €133m derivatives claim
Solicitors Journal

Dexia v Comune di Torino: how hindsight and low interest rates became the basis for a €133m derivatives claim

English court rejects Turin's bid to unwind two decades of interest rate swaps after the global financial crisis cut rates.
Court Report19 Jun 2026
Iconic Sports Eagle Investment v Textor: football, a $100m put option and a clarification of specific performance law
Solicitors Journal

Iconic Sports Eagle Investment v Textor: football, a $100m put option and a clarification of specific performance law

Commercial Court confirms a claimant need not be ready to perform at the contractual date if the other party has repudiated.
Court Report19 Jun 2026
Al-Uzaybi v Home Office: government's raid on special advocate's chambers exposes fault lines in closed proceedings
Solicitors Journal

Al-Uzaybi v Home Office: government's raid on special advocate's chambers exposes fault lines in closed proceedings

High Court condemns intelligence agencies' seizure of a special advocate's notes as a serious threat to judicial independence.
Court Report19 Jun 2026
Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Extensions Projco v Persons Unknown: offshore wind trumps fishing rights in injunction battle
Solicitors Journal

Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Extensions Projco v Persons Unknown: offshore wind trumps fishing rights in injunction battle

High Court grants windfarm developer injunction to clear fishing gear from survey area despite fishermen's objections.
Court Report19 Jun 2026
Lloyds Developments v Accor Hotel Services: directors ordered to hand over phones despite deleted message uncertainty
Solicitors Journal

Lloyds Developments v Accor Hotel Services: directors ordered to hand over phones despite deleted message uncertainty

TCC orders former directors to surrender mobile devices even where relevant messages may be unrecoverable.
Court Report19 Jun 2026
Connors v Bromley Borough Council: when changed planning policy cannot override years of enforcement defiance
Solicitors Journal

Connors v Bromley Borough Council: when changed planning policy cannot override years of enforcement defiance

High Court rules that seven years of non-compliance with enforcement notices can justify declining to consider a planning application on its merits.
Court Report19 Jun 2026
Laffy v WKCIC Group: why a false allegation without investigation is not always discrimination
Solicitors Journal

Laffy v WKCIC Group: why a false allegation without investigation is not always discrimination

The EAT upholds a tribunal's dismissal of direct discrimination claims despite a false and serious allegation going uninvestigated.
Court Report19 Jun 2026
SJ Interview: Paul Marco
Solicitors Journal

SJ Interview: Paul Marco

Paul Marco, Managing Partner of Trowers & Hamlins, speaks to Solicitors Journal
Interview26 May 2026
When the rules can't keep up
Solicitors Journal

When the rules can't keep up

From Westminster to the courts, the rules are being written faster than they can settle
Foreword1 Jun 2026