dr tinwell bribery with NDA

Summary

The requester asked for settlement costs and details regarding 'without prejudice' negotiations in the Dr Tinwell employment tribunal, alleging unfair legal funding practices. The Department of Health and Social Care refused to confirm or deny holding the information, citing an absolute exemption for personal data.

Key Facts

• The request was received on 3 May 2022 and responded to on 9 May 2022.
• The authority is the Department of Health and Social Care on the Isle of Man.
• The outcome was a 'neither confirm nor deny' refusal.
• The refusal is based on Section 25 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 regarding personal data.
• The request concerns an employment tribunal involving Dr Tinwell and settlement negotiations.

Data Disclosed

• 2022-05-03
• 2022-05-09
• Section 19
• Section 25
• Freedom of Information Act 2015

Exemptions Cited

• Section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (Neither confirm nor deny)
• Section 25 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (Absolutely exempt personal information)

Original Request

Please supply the settlement cost with components if relevant of the last minute settlement in the Dr Tinwell employment tribunal given "without prejudice" documents between a non-lawyer complainant, DHSC officer and MIRS officer are subject to civil procedure rules not legal privilege and given the case is long concluded. Please confirm or deny the existence and date and total documents and total pages of each such "without prejudice" attempt to negotiate a settlement to include the source of the attempted negotiation to prevent significant wasted costs of the employment tribunal on the basis it is inherently unfair detriment against the public interest of all taxpayers to fully fund and absorb significant costs of very complex legal proceedings solely to benefit a single employee legal strategy to maximise private settlement without any attributed costs to the department in the national accounts, i.e. disingenuous "no win no fee" arrangements to departments not available to impoverished complainants and reinforced by the Isle of Man Law Society and HM AG chambers and Treasury Civil Legal Aid rules in breach of human rights and the equity of arms principle. Please apply the public interest test as a public good given by inference the large amount of money involved, given the large number of people affected (thousands of public sector employees, by definition all taxpayers and some users of public services), given the lack of transparency in the public authority actions and inactions, given the scale of misconduct, process failures in corporate governance, astounding efforts to avoid any accountability and any admission of liability and implied criminality in order to better inform public debate on long overdue reforms (the Overton window) and seriously question the inherently unfair free uncapped legal support from HM Attorney General chambers to the public sector without any cost recovery and any attributed costs to in any department etc in the national accounts and without any requirement by department officers to shoulder any equivalent onerous burden of a public sector whistleblower acting in the public interest that inherently encourages a corruption with a cover up management culture.

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Chief Executive: Karen Malone Freedom of Information Team First Floor Belgravia House Douglas Isle of Man IM1 1AE

Our ref: 2421077 9 May 2022

Dear ###

We write further to your request which was received 3 May 2022 and which states:

"Please supply the settlement cost with components if relevant of the last minute settlement in the Dr Tinwell employment tribunal given "without prejudice" documents between a non-lawyer complainant, DHSC officer and MIRS officer are subject to civil procedure rules not legal privilege and given the case is long concluded. Please confirm or deny the existence and date and total documents and total pages of each such "without prejudice" attempt to negotiate a settlement to include the source of the attempted negotiation to prevent significant wasted costs of the employment tribunal on the basis it is inherently unfair detriment against the public interest of all taxpayers to fully fund and absorb significant costs of very complex legal proceedings solely to benefit a single employee legal strategy to maximise private settlement without any attributed costs to the department in the national accounts, i.e. disingenuous "no win no fee" arrangements to departments not available to impoverished complainants and reinforced by the Isle of Man Law Society and HM AG chambers and Treasury Civil Legal Aid rules in breach of human rights and the equity of arms principle. Please apply the public interest test as a public good given by inference the large amount of money involved, given the large number of people affected (thousands of public sector employees, by definition all taxpayers and some users of public services), given the lack of transparency in the public authority actions and inactions, given the scale of misconduct, process failures in corporate governance, astounding efforts to avoid any accountability and any admission of liability and implied criminality in order to better inform public debate on long overdue reforms (the Overton window) and seriously question the inherently unfair free uncapped legal support from HM Attorney General chambers to the public sector without any cost recovery and any attributed costs to in any department etc in the national accounts and without any requirement by department officers to shoulder any equivalent onerous burden of a public sector whistleblower acting in the public interest that inherently encourages a corruption with a cover up management culture."

Our response: In response to your questions, we do endeavour to provide information whenever possible. However, under section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (the ‘Act’), a public authority may refuse a request where to either confirm or deny whether it holds information would itself be absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information under the Act. In this instance, if the information you requested did exist or was held by us, an exemption under section 25 (Absolutely exempt personal information) of the Act would apply to that information. Section 25 of the Act provides that: “Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes (a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject; and (b)..(i) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of “data” in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 2002, the disclosure of the information to a member of the public (otherwise than under this Act) would contravene any of the data protection principles...”. This exemption would apply because the Department of Health and Social Care (the ‘Department’) is satisfied that disclosure of the information, if the information did exist or was held by us, would contravene the data protection principles under the data protection legislation. If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.
In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im. Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi. I will now close your request as of this date.