The legal battle between a government department and the island’s former top medic will continue today (Friday).

Deemster Andrew Corlett is due to hear two appeals from the Department of Health and Social Care which may affect tribunal hearings scheduled to get underway on Tuesday.

The matter of the appeals is not to challenge the ruling of the tribunal that former medical director Dr Rosalind Ranson was unfairly dismissed. This followed her making protected disclosures, better known as whistleblowing.

Instead, the DHSC is claiming that the tribunal, chaired by Douglas Stewart, is acting beyond its jurisdiction in holding the hearing into whether documents were withheld or ‘concocted’ by DHSC staff.

During the hearing, Kathryn Clough, representing the DHSC, said that her client was seeking to adjourn next week’s hearings.

This led to Deemster Corlett saying that the appeals were ‘very last minute’.

Mrs Clough said that the documents requesting the adjournment were filed ‘at the earliest opportunity that we had to do so’, given Callin Wild’s recent appointment by the department.

Reflecting on the sudden decision to change its legal team at this stage, Deemster Corlett said he was surprised and referred to it as a ‘self-inflicted wound’ by the DHSC.

Returning to the matter of the appeals, Mrs Clough said that if a stay on proceedings were not granted, there was a ‘real risk of injustice’ and said that the hearings should not go ahead before the appeals are heard.

She added that if the appeals were held, and were successful after the tribunal, it would prejudice her client and wouldn’t allow statements already made before the tribunals to be taken back, in essence it would be ‘too late’.

This drew Deemster Corlett to offer to hold the appeal hearing today (Friday).

The core of the most significant appeal is that Mrs Clough alleges the employment tribunal overstepped its remit by conducting its own investigation into the disclosures of documents and referred to its own judgement, published on August 1, saying it was hosting a ‘fact-finding mission’.

Deemster Corlett noted that the department had not only given its consent to this process, it had even partially complied with it. However, Mrs Clough argued that this didn’t mean it was lawfully correct to do so.

Deemster Corlett said: ‘It seems to me that the tribunal did have jurisdiction, this issue relating to disclosure problems are relevant not only to costs, but also remedies.’

However, Mrs Clough continued to dispute this saying that the matters should be heard in the correct forum and this, in her and her client’s opinion, is not in front of the employment tribunal, at least not at this stage.

She later confirmed that it was both her and her client’s concern that the tribunal had overstepped its remit by ‘compelling’ the DHSC to produce evidence, but said that neither party had any intention to delay matters, providing they were correct in law.

Another issue relating to the disclosure of documents raised by Mrs Clough was that the DHSC has hired Expol, a private investigation company, to investigate the claims that the documents were concocted.

Despite the matter first being published in the tribunal report on May 9, Expol was only employed at the end of July, just weeks before the panel was due to hear evidence on the issue of these documents.

This also led to Mrs Clough recommending a delay to proceedings, however Peter Russell, acting on behalf of Dr Ranson, said that the tribunal had already agreed to hear the Expol evidence at a later date.

Deemster Corlett said: ‘Obviously the tribunal thinks it can do this itself without the need to have private detectives.’

Mr Russell spoke briefly in court to criticise the DHSC for changing its legal team so late in the day and said he didn’t understand the argument that the tribunal had overstepped its remit in seeking answers over these allegedly concocted documents.

He added that the criticism of the DHSC and its handling of documents in the May 9 ruling was ‘fairly unprecedented’ and said that ‘Dr Ranson has suffered greatly and is still suffering’.

‘Her health is suffering and she needs resolution as soon as possible,’ he said.

Also in court was John Aycock, representing former DHSC chief executive Karen Malone. Mr Aycock said that Mrs Malone was advised to appoint her own legal representative by the DHSC on August 2.

Mr Aycock told the court that Mrs Malone was unsure about what was required of her at this time due to the unclear wording of a document from the tribunal on August 1. Deemster Corlett agreed that the wording wasn’t the best, but assured him that neither her presence, nor an affidavit form her, is required for next week’s hearing, if it goes ahead.

Throughout Thursday’s hearing, Deemster Corlett made it clear that the ‘only jurisdiction’ he has over the tribunal is if the panel made an error in law, as claimed by Mrs Clough and the DHSC, but did grant the appeal hearing, which will begin at 10.30am today.