Airport.

[Numbnuts]

Rumour has it he is a family friend of Renolds . Is this true or anyone know different . 

[Ringy Rose]

4 hours ago, Two-lane said:

If Spake has anything close to a case, names will not be named but he will get a payout. If he gets a payout, it does not matter what you think of his competence - the problem lies, and continues to lie, elsewhere (double meaning not intended).

Clearly things are not well at the airport, given they still can’t seem to keep ATC staff.

No doubt his line is he was bullied by ATC staff because he was trying to fix things. No doubt ATC’s line is that he was an unqualified halfwit. His Twitter posts in late 2020/early 2021 were “interesting”.

The truth may well, as always, be somewhere in the middle. It’s usually cheapest to just pay someone to go away in those situations.

I don’t see how he’d get to have a second bite at the cherry, though. He settled once. Let’s hope they made the agreement watertight.

[Fred the shred]

This is the line the advocate for the DOI is taking that this is the second bite.   I wonder how much he got paid out in the tribunal settlement, significant sum it says.    The comments in the DM are varied but most are not on his side, apparently he is in some kind of business with Anne Reynolds now.    

[Numbnuts]

11 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

I don’t see how he’d get to have a second bite at the cherry, though. He settled once. Let’s hope they made the agreement watertight.

And there lies the worry . Our AG’s office haven’t covered themselves in glory recently .

[Two-lane]

If Spake is paying the legal fees himself, he must be reasonably sure, because I assume that the fees in cases like these are not going to be trivial.

If he has got a "no win no fee" deal, his lawyers must have a belief they are going to get something out of it.

The AG's office don't care - I'm paying their salary.

 

[Non-Believer]

14 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

If Spake is paying the legal fees himself, he must be reasonably sure, because I assume that the fees in cases like these are not going to be trivial.

If he has got a "no win no fee" deal, his lawyers must have a belief they are going to get something out of it.

The AG's office don't care - I'm paying their salary.

 

We've probably granted him legal aid as well....

[Roger Mexico]

15 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

If Spake is paying the legal fees himself, he must be reasonably sure, because I assume that the fees in cases like these are not going to be trivial.

If he has got a "no win no fee" deal, his lawyers must have a belief they are going to get something out of it.

The AG's office don't care - I'm paying their salary.

In theory Spake will be paying the legal fees himself, though if he wins this particular case - which was about whether he was able to bring a second case to the Tribunal - then costs may be awarded for him.  But of course we know he has already had a substantial payout to keep him quiet, so in sense we're paying even if he loses.

He won't be entitled to legal aid and no one gets legal aid for employment tribunals anyway.  I don't think "No win, No fee" deals are usual in the Isle of Man, but an advocate (and he's represented by a local) will take a case forward, even if they think it weak, if the client insists - and can pay.  Of course we don't know what the agreement said and if it allows Spake to come back for damages that weren't explicitly covered.  We may get some idea when the judgment is published.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

In theory Spake will be paying the legal fees himself, though if he wins this particular case - which was about whether he was able to bring a second case to the Tribunal - then costs may be awarded for him.  But of course we know he has already had a substantial payout to keep him quiet, so in sense we're paying even if he loses.

He won't be entitled to legal aid and no one gets legal aid for employment tribunals anyway.  I don't think "No win, No fee" deals are usual in the Isle of Man, but an advocate (and he's represented by a local) will take a case forward, even if they think it weak, if the client insists - and can pay.  Of course we don't know what the agreement said and if it allows Spake to come back for damages that weren't explicitly covered.  We may get some idea when the judgment is published.

I think you’ve got that wrong.

This isn’t a case about bringing a second case in the Employment Tribunal.

This is a High Court claim for personal injuries, against DoI. The DoI are alleging it can’t proceed because he’s already claimed, and been paid out,  for injury to his health in the settled Employment Tribunal case.

If he qualifies on financial grounds legal aid is available in the High Court. Legal Aid isn’t available in the Employment Tribunal.

No win no fee isn’t available in the High Court. No win no fee is funded in two ways, an uplift on any costs  the other side pays to your advocate, if you win, and a chunk taken from your winnings.

Those are maintenance and champerty, and until comparatively recently were criminal offences in England and IoM. They’re still against IoM rules in cases in High Court. But they’ve never been banned in Tribunal cases. 

[Roger Mexico]

31 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I think you’ve got that wrong.

This isn’t a case about bringing a second case in the Employment Tribunal.

This is a High Court claim for personal injuries, against DoI. The DoI are alleging it can’t proceed because he’s already claimed, and been paid out,  for injury to his health in the settled Employment Tribunal case.

If he qualifies on financial grounds legal aid is available in the High Court. Legal Aid isn’t available in the Employment Tribunal.

No win no fee isn’t available in the High Court. No win no fee is funded in two ways, an uplift on any costs  the other side pays to your advocate, if you win, and a chunk taken from your winnings.

Those are maintenance and champerty, and until comparatively recently were criminal offences in England and IoM. They’re still against IoM rules in cases in High Court. But they’ve never been banned in Tribunal cases. 

Thanks for the extra info.  It wasn't clear from the reporting if the High Court case was to allow a second tribunal to go forward (as with Ranson) or some other action.  If it's the latter and the case is allowed to go ahead, then it would theoretically be possible for him to get legal aid (apparently there's no residency qualification) though qualification on financial grounds is unlikely, if only because of the question "What happened to all that lovely money we gave you in January?".

If the case is allowed to proceed, we might hear nothing more of course, not least because of the admissions apparently made as part of the settlement suggest there's a lot of detail they will want to keep under wraps.

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

I think you’ve got that wrong.

This isn’t a case about bringing a second case in the Employment Tribunal.

This is a High Court claim for personal injuries, against DoI. The DoI are alleging it can’t proceed because he’s already claimed, and been paid out,  for injury to his health in the settled Employment Tribunal case.

As you suggest he’s being greedy. He got a big payout under a compromise agreement that included stress and mental health damage. Now he has the cheek to come back for a personal injury claim for basically the same reasons because it’s a grey area. I hope he’s on an others sides costs agreement and he loses and has to pay up. 

[Casta]

Did this chap ride a proverbial Harley?

[asitis]

This was always bound to end in tears, for reasons which others know far more about than me, he was considered an absolute joke around the airport. Maybe HR or whoever appointed him should be the ones appearing before a tribunal !

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, asitis said:

This was always bound to end in tears, for reasons which others know far more about than me, he was considered an absolute joke around the airport. Maybe HR or whoever appointed him should be the ones appearing before a tribunal !

One might wonder if, given his lack of apparent qualifications for the job but "light entertainment" background, employing him was thought to be some sort of advertising/publicity coup that would attract people people here?

[Roger Mexico]

5 hours ago, asitis said:

This was always bound to end in tears, for reasons which others know far more about than me, he was considered an absolute joke around the airport. Maybe HR or whoever appointed him should be the ones appearing before a tribunal !

I put up the job description for the role a few days back and as I pointed out when his appointment was announced (which was in a rather low-key way if the purpose was publicity for IOM Airport) there was not much external evidence to show he had anything like the experience required in that.  His Linkedin was so odd that at one time I assumed it was a fake and there wasn't the sort of trade paper coverage you would expect in a career in management.

A half-competent HR department would have picked this up immediately, after all I could in half an hour's googling.  For their own self-preservation (and Manx civil servants are good at that) they would have documented everything - especially if his application contained stuff that couldn't be verified and HR advice about unsuitability had been overridden.  They would have also ensured that Ministers and senior management knew about the situation if procedures had been ignored.

Which may explain why it never reached tribunal.  If these documents were there, they would have to be (and maybe had been) disclosed to Spake's lawyers.  It might be embarrassing for their client, but it's more difficult to dismiss someone for being incompetent, unqualified or dishonest if you knew they were like that when they were appointed.

And it's clear from the little bit of the settlement that has been quoted that Spake must have made some sort of communications about airport safety.  We also know now that the CAA had already registered formal concerns on the topic.  The fact that these problems all happened when his mate Annie was in charge and got worse when he was there as well is irrelevant.  All the details would also have come out at a tribunal and had an effect.  We have after all seen a CEO dumped because of revelations at a tribunal which the government won. 

So you can see why they would throw a lot of money at Spake to keep things quiet.  And if he wins this case on technical grounds (which are what it is being contested on) we might expect to see things go very quiet again.

[madmanxpilot]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I put up the job description for the role a few days back and as I pointed out when his appointment was announced (which was in a rather low-key way if the purpose was publicity for IOM Airport) there was not much external evidence to show he had anything like the experience required in that.  His Linkedin was so odd that at one time I assumed it was a fake and there wasn't the sort of trade paper coverage you would expect in a career in management.

A half-competent HR department would have picked this up immediately, after all I could in half an hour's googling.  For their own self-preservation (and Manx civil servants are good at that) they would have documented everything - especially if his application contained stuff that couldn't be verified and HR advice about unsuitability had been overridden.  They would have also ensured that Ministers and senior management knew about the situation if procedures had been ignored.

Which may explain why it never reached tribunal.  If these documents were there, they would have to be (and maybe had been) disclosed to Spake's lawyers.  It might be embarrassing for their client, but it's more difficult to dismiss someone for being incompetent, unqualified or dishonest if you knew they were like that when they were appointed.

And it's clear from the little bit of the settlement that has been quoted that Spake must have made some sort of communications about airport safety.  We also know now that the CAA had already registered formal concerns on the topic.  The fact that these problems all happened when his mate Annie was in charge and got worse when he was there as well is irrelevant.  All the details would also have come out at a tribunal and had an effect.  We have after all seen a CEO dumped because of revelations at a tribunal which the government won. 

So you can see why they would throw a lot of money at Spake to keep things quiet.  And if he wins this case on technical grounds (which are what it is being contested on) we might expect to see things go very quiet again.

100%