Dr Ranson seeks exemplary compensation due to DHSC's conduct during tribunal

Closing submissions made at remedy hearing seeking to determine payout

Legal teams representing the Island's former medical director and the Department of Health and Social Care offered contrasting views on a report into the authenticity of documents submitted to an employment tribunal.

It's as the two parties submitted their closing remarks in a remedy hearing to determine what payout Dr Rosalind Ranson will receive following her unfair dismissal from the DHSC.

As well as seeking compensation for loss of future earnings and pension, Dr Ranson's case calls for an exemplary payout because of the DHSC's conduct during the case.

Oliver Segal KC, representing the medic, told the hearing the additional compensation is justified because the department defended Dr Ranson's whistleblowing claim 'on the basis of a lie'.

He also highlighted the way the DHSC disclosed documents during the original liability hearing, and described the disclosure hearing in the summer as 'a waste of time'.

Simon Devonshire KC set out the DHSC's case, questioning the validity of Dr Ranson's evidence that she would have looked to continue in the medical director role until she was 72, which he labelled 'vague and unsatisfactory'.

Instead, he says her financial position and the stress of the role mean she would likely have stepped away from the post in her mid 60s - something Mr Segal insisted was not the case.

Mr Devonshire also focussed on a report by private investigation firm ExPol into allegations that a number of DHSC documents submitted to the tribunal had been concocted.

Dr Ranson previously told the tribunal she didn't agree with the findings of the report, which concluded the department had not created false paperwork, but the DHSC's lawyer said her criticism was not soundly based, insisting there is 'absolutely no mystery' surrounding the DHSC's paperwork.

However, Mr Segal argued the investigators failed to ask the right questions, and claimed government would have been less willing to release details from the report if it had been 'done properly'.

Expert witnesses on pensions and health previously gave evidence to the remedy hearing, which both parties raised in their closing arguments.

Mr Devonshire said the DHSC accepts that the case has caused psychological injury to Dr Ranson, but continued to suggest her symptoms started later than her medical expert told the hearing earlier this week.

Mr Segal was critical of the department's financial and medical experts, highlighting that Mr Devonshire hadn't included much evidence from either in his submissions.

Having heard from both sides, the tribunal will now consider the evidence before publishing its guidelines for a payout. Dr Ranson's team also submitted an application for costs.