Dr George Mantides is once again determined to fight for his IR35 status. The difference is, unlike the last time, this time he has the Independent Health Professionals Association for assistance. The body is providing help by paying his barrister so he can appeal against his IR35 loss.

This defeated came through an FTT (First-Tier Tribunal), after which he lost his status as being outside IR35 while serving at the Royal Berkshire Hospital. He was defeated despite the refusal of the RBH staff in attending the case proceedings.

The locum became popular when he scored a victory for his second claim in which he proved that he did not fall in the IR35 scope for his work in the Medway Maritime Hospital. The victory was sweeter considering the fact that Mr Mantides represented himself.

He has now announced that he now plans to appeal against his defeat in the Upper Tribunal for his contracts at RBH which extended from March 2013 to August 2013.

However, this time, with IHPA’s assistance, he has the support of Michael Paulin – a barrister with a lot of experience on his back.

The IHPA is supportive of the barrister who is known to compel the NHSI – a NHS regulator – to take a U-turn when the latter tried to use “blanket” determinations on the IR35 status of PSCs.

It is the vast experience of Mr Paulin, which is the reason why the campaign target is as high £20,000. Latest reports suggest that half of this amount has been collected already. However, the ‘stretch target’ is estimated to be £60,000.

The general-secretary of IHPA, Dr Iain Campbell, explained that it was extremely crucial to ensure that Dr Mantides had the right representation. He does not believe that FTT took the right stance on RBH. While he agrees that Dr Mantides was great at his previous trial all by himself, however this time the stakes are higher. This means that this case can set a vital precedent for the community.

Back in July, after Dr Mantides defeat, Dr Campbell criticised the reasoning of FTT to place Mantides in the IR35 scope. And now, the battle goes to the court again. He said, “The notional contract used at the FTT appeared markedly aberrant to those of us with experience in the locum market.”