IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

No, any negotiation with Ranson and her legal team would be completely separate from the disclosure hearings and its outcome wouldn't have any effect on any settlement.  At most all it would do would be to confirm that various employees etc of the Manx government had behaved even worse that we already know.  And that's probably gone way past the maximum effect it would have on any settlement based on what is already accepted in the Decision.

In fact the opposite would be true, because any negotiations would presumably be placed on hold until the decision not to make an appeal was formally announced or the time ran out.  At 'best' this is just the various. currently headless[1], bits of government doing things by their regular method of dragging everything out to the maximum - look at the Tindell case or indeed the way complaints against the NHS have been done.  At worst they're trying to find more time to shred the documents and wipe the computers.

 

[1]  No DHSC CEO, no head of HR, no AG.

I wasn't talking about the disclosure hearings. I was talking about the appeal against the decision. I know the outcome of the disclosure would have little bearing in the appeal, but you made the comment about dragging things out. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

I wasn't talking about the disclosure hearings. I was talking about the appeal against the decision. I know the outcome of the disclosure would have little bearing in the appeal, but you made the comment about dragging things out. 

I don't think they could have gone ahead with the disclosure hearings if the original decision had been appealed because both would have been examining (some of) the same evidence and the hearings would have been examining (some of) the same witnesses  So the whole appeal procedure would have had to be exhausted before any hearings could take place.

[Kopek]

One would hope that the Counsel for Ranson would be astute to the machinations of the Govt in the compensation negotiations?

Who decided to delay on the appeal period? The AG, the CS, the CM??? Whomever, it has just added to the extremely poor performance of our Govt in this matter? It is not a pretty situation.

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I don't think they could have gone ahead with the disclosure hearings if the original decision had been appealed because both would have been examining (some of) the same evidence and the hearings would have been examining (some of) the same witnesses  So the whole appeal procedure would have had to be exhausted before any hearings could take place.

I don't know the process, but it does seem to me that the delay in lodging an appeal may have been more to do with reaching an agreed settlement.   While the opportunity to appeal remains open, you have a bit of something to negotiate with.

I don't know, but it seems to me that the further hearing about the veracity of evidence is not directly linked to an agreed settlement at this stage, but may be later.  That is possibly why there wasn't a settlement in the intervening period.

But, to return to your earlier comment , I don't think pushing the decision to appeal to the eleventh hour was necessarily intended to be a two fingers, but more how the process works.

[John Wright]

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I don't know the process, but it does seem to me that the delay in lodging an appeal may have been more to do with reaching an agreed settlement.   While the opportunity to appeal remains open, you have a bit of something to negotiate with.

I don't know, but it seems to me that the further hearing about the veracity of evidence is not directly linked to an agreed settlement at this stage, but may be later.  That is possibly why there wasn't a settlement in the intervening period.

But, to return to your earlier comment , I don't think pushing the decision to appeal to the eleventh hour was necessarily intended to be a two fingers, but more how the process works.

Purely tactically it doesn’t really work like you postulate in para 1. . There’s an appeal period. It can’t be shortened. Even if you say you aren’t going to appeal you can change your mind, right up to the last minute. So your para 3 is correct.

Why would Ranson's legal team want to negotiate during the appeal period, unless DHSC made a huge offer meeting their wildest dreams. Especially when there’s this hearing about the evidence inconsistencies coming along, which may put even more pressure on DHSC.

Of course both sides are going to have to now put in cross submissions to the Tribunal as to quantum of award. It’s not until those are in that negotiating parameters are set.

Finally, nothing encourages negotiating like an imminent hearing, any way.

[0bserver]

How long do we give Manx Care before passing judgement on it's success or otherwise? 

Maybe another 18 months.

So far I would award it a C- "doing alright but loads of room for improvement". 

[Gladys]

11 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Purely tactically it doesn’t really work like you postulate in para 1. . There’s an appeal period. It can’t be shortened. Even if you say you aren’t going to appeal you can change your mind, right up to the last minute. So your para 3 is correct.

Why would Ranson's legal team want to negotiate during the appeal period, unless DHSC made a huge offer meeting their wildest dreams. Especially when there’s this hearing about the evidence inconsistencies coming along, which may put even more pressure on DHSC.

Of course both sides are going to have to now put in cross submissions to the Tribunal as to quantum of award. It’s not until those are in that negotiating parameters are set.

Finally, nothing encourages negotiating like an imminent hearing, any way.

That was kind of my point, John.  We don't know what has been going on in the background. But is ascribing the decision not to appeal until the last opportunity really down to some egregious intent?

I may be being naive, but I thought the intervening period between decision and award would allow the parties to negotiate a settlement, if they wanted to.

I get your point about Dr Ranson's team not entertaining any settlement, unless the horse trams were thrown in, of course. That is absolutely her right and I am not arguing against that, just the assumption that because the decision to appeal was not made public until the last opportunity, it was a tactical device to further undermine her. 

[english zloty]

A quick Google seems to indicate the new interim director of public health is arriving with the usual backstory associated with senior appointments. Moved around from place to place leaving investigations in his wake. 

[piebaps]

12 minutes ago, Gladys said:

That was kind of my point, John.  We don't know what has been going on in the background. But is ascribing the decision not to appeal until the last opportunity really down to some egregious intent?

I may be being naive, but I thought the intervening period between decision and award would allow the parties to negotiate a settlement, if they wanted to.

I get your point about Dr Ranson's team not entertaining any settlement, unless the horse trams were thrown in, of course. That is absolutely her right and I am not arguing against that, just the assumption that because the decision to appeal was not made public until the last opportunity, it was a tactical device to further undermine her. 

The appeal period is 14 days from the date the judgement is sent to the parties. It was dated 9th May so the appeal window closed quite some time ago. 

The appeal stuff is all on the Tribunal pages https://www.courts.im/media/2902/the-employment-equality-tribunal-information.pdf

It looks like the schedule of tribunal hearings was updated today hence the story https://www.courts.im/court-procedures/tribunals-service/schedule-of-tribunal-hearings/

From my reading of tribunal cases, appeals (or reviews as they call them) are quite limited in scope and rarely successful.

[Kopek]

It matters not what the delay in the possibility of an appeal was  but rather what was the thinking was  behind this  delay? More importantly, who was behind this decision? As I say above, was it  AG, CS CM? Resignation/retirements could reasonably be expected apart from Alf's?

But in an highly public tribunal decision, will we ever be appraised of the Govt/PS logic in this???

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, piebaps said:

The appeal period is 14 days from the date the judgement is sent to the parties. It was dated 9th May so the appeal window closed quite some time ago. 

The appeal stuff is all on the Tribunal pages https://www.courts.im/media/2902/the-employment-equality-tribunal-information.pdf

It looks like the schedule of tribunal hearings was updated today hence the story https://www.courts.im/court-procedures/tribunals-service/schedule-of-tribunal-hearings/

From my reading of tribunal cases, appeals (or reviews as they call them) are quite limited in scope and rarely successful.

So are the parties required to give further evidence in a review?

 

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, piebaps said:

The appeal period is 14 days from the date the judgement is sent to the parties. It was dated 9th May so the appeal window closed quite some time ago. 

The appeal stuff is all on the Tribunal pages https://www.courts.im/media/2902/the-employment-equality-tribunal-information.pdf

It looks like the schedule of tribunal hearings was updated today hence the story https://www.courts.im/court-procedures/tribunals-service/schedule-of-tribunal-hearings/

From my reading of tribunal cases, appeals (or reviews as they call them) are quite limited in scope and rarely successful.

There are two types of “appeal”, with different periods.

1. for a review, back to the tribunal 

2. an appeal on a point of law to the High Court

[Andy Onchan]

8 hours ago, english zloty said:

A quick Google seems to indicate the new interim director of public health is arriving with the usual backstory associated with senior appointments. Moved around from place to place leaving investigations in his wake. 

Aye... And I wonder how much we're paying for the privilege of him being here (assuming he's at least part-resident)?: 

https://theferret.scot/woerden-nhs-highland-155000-salary/

[KERED]

9 hours ago, english zloty said:

A quick Google seems to indicate the new interim director of public health is arriving with the usual backstory associated with senior appointments. Moved around from place to place leaving investigations in his wake. 

But, does he ride a Harley?

[cissolt]

With Mr Hooper in charge of health at the time of the alleged forged document incident, can we expect a new health minister after this?