First Deemster Andrew Corlett has dismissed an appeal from the health department to prevent a tribunal hearing being concluded.

The Department of Health and Social Care appealed to Deemster Corlett that the tribunal should not be allowed to continue as the proceedings were out of time.

The tribunal is that of Dr Claire Tinwell, a consultant clinical psychologist who was working in the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service team.

Dr Tinwell claims she ’suffered detriment following public interest disclosures that she had made’ resulting in ’career-ending consequences’ - attributable, she alleges, to conditions and issues at work that had caused a serious breakdown in her health.

A tribunal panel, chaired by Douglas Stewart ruled in 2019 that she should be allowed to continue to a full hearing despite the DHSC trying to have it thrown out saying Dr Tinwell had not started proceedings within three months of the alleged incidents.

The appeal before Deemster Corlett also considered whether her whistle blowing proceedings (referred to as PD) should have been dismissed.

In its submissions, the DHSC said that the last relevant alleged detriment can only be the decision of Dr Couch (the former chief executive)of April 4, 2017 and thus the PD proceedings are out of time.

Referencing a ruling by Stephen Hind (an officer of the Treasury Department) on September 15, 2017 DHSC said ’neither Mr Hind nor the Treasury are or were the respondent’s employer and neither was he or it a person authorised to receive qualifying disclosures in accordance with a relevant procedure’.

However, Deemster Corlett said: ’I agree with the Respondent that the critical date for time purposes is not the date of the disclosure, but the date of the last detriment.’

The last alleged detriment was the decision of Mr Hind meaning that the PD proceedings were begun on December 14, 2017 and as such were within the required three-month period.

On account of this and other reasons explained in his judgement, Deemster Corlett said: ’The appeal must therefore be dismissed on all the grounds advanced before me.’

He also criticised the DHSC for bringing its appeal before him and added: ’A large amount of time and money seems to have been expended on arguing rather complex issues of law on review, only for them to be repeated before me.

’The legal issues have thus been argued now on three separate occasions. The process seems merely to have increased costs and led to nearly six months of delay, increasing the stress and anxiety on all sides.’

Deemster Corlett also noted that the tribunal process has been underway for over 18 months and that he hopes the existing tribunal panel is able to conclude all matters relating to Dr Tinwell’s claims as quickly as possible.