Advocates question why DHSC tribunal appeal is going ahead

"We don't really know why we're here", lawyer tells court

Legal teams representing both parties in an appeal to decide whether an advocate can give evidence to an employment tribunal have questioned why it's taking place.

The Department of Health and Social Care has challenged the decision to ask Anna Heeley of the Attorney General's Chambers about the disclosure of documents earlier this year.

The appeal relates to the employment tribunal's ongoing investigation into how documents were disclosed by the department during its hearing into the dismissal of the Island's former Medical Director, Dr Rosalind Ranson.

The DHSC initially lodged the appeal in August following concerns over whether Miss Heeley would be required to breach legal professional privilege.

However, Kathryn Clough, representing the department, told the court privilege is no longer a concern, instead, alleging that the tribunal is acting outside its powers by asking Miss Heeley to give evidence on a topic she isn't best placed to speak about.

In response, Dr Ranson's advocate said concerns over privilege had been clarified with the tribunal four days after the appeal was lodged, but the DHSC left it 'late in the day' to abandon the argument.

Richard Halsall insisted as Miss Heeley was responsible for ensuring the DHSC complied with the disclosure process, the tribunal was within its rights to ask her for evidence.

He went on to describe the way the department complied with disclosure as "an utter car crash".

While conceding it would be unusual to call a lawyer to give evidence, Mr Halsall added that there would be a limited number of people who would know about the process in this case, and Miss Heeley is one them.

One of the issues the tribunal had asked Miss Heeley for evidence on was the disclosure of the day books from former DHSC CEO Kathryn Magson - something Mrs Clough insisted Miss Heeley wouldn't be the best person to discuss.

However, the tribunal is unable to order Miss Magson to give evidence, due to her living in the UK rather than on the Isle of Man.

Since the appeal was lodged, Miss Heeley has submitted a statement to the tribunal relating to six specific documents, confirming that four were disclosed.

Given that she has now provided this statement, Mr Halsall questioned why the department is still against Miss Heeley giving evidence, stating: "We don't really know why we're here today, we don't know the point of their appeal."

Mrs Clough also questioned why the appeal was taking place now that the tribunal has received a statement from Miss Heeley, adding that the department "wants to move on and deal with remedy".

First Deemster Andrew Corlett was critical of the wording of the tribunal's order asking Miss Heeley to give evidence, describing it as "woolly", but confirmed lawyers can be required to give evidence, and can be found to have fallen foul of the disclosure process.

Deemster Corlett said he needs to carefully review the details of the appeal, and that a judgment would be published in due course.

It was also confirmed the DHSC is yet to receive a report from Expol looking into allegations of concocted documents, and that previously set-aside dates in November for further evidence won't be needed by the tribunal.

After the tribunal ruled Dr Ranson was unfairly dismissed as a result of whistleblowing, a remedy hearing has been scheduled for January.