The woman who was in charge of Haringey Childrens services

[Occam's Razor]

Link? Not a press report, you can't trust what you read in the paper.

Weightmans? (from Dec 2013)

Given the fact that the Court of Appeal decision was handed down in May 2011, it is clear that the settlement negotiations since then have been a lengthy process. Settlement was finally agreed at the eleventh hour before the parties were due to return to court.

The reality of the situation is that the remedy available to Sharon Shoesmith in the civil courts was likely to be far more valuable than what she could have been awarded in the Employment Tribunal. The relief sought from the Judicial Review proceedings included the quashing of the Council’s decision to dismiss her, which rendered the dismissal null and void. The finding in her favour by the Court of Appeal enabled Sharon Shoesmith to claim back her contractual entitlements, including pay and benefits from the date of her dismissal until her employment was lawfully terminated by the Council.

It has been reported that Shoesmith had initially sought compensation in the region of £1m. However, the Court of Appeal held that Shoesmith was entitled to a declaration that her dismissal was unlawful and also to compensation, which should be negotiated between the parties. The Judge gave guidance that the level of compensation considered should fall between a sum equivalent to three months' salary and pension contributions (which she would have received during her contractual notice period) and pay and other contractual benefits attached to her role as Director until her employment has been lawfully terminated by the Council.

The press have reported that the settlement sum that has now been agreed is in the region of £600,000, but the exact figure is unlikely to emerge given that there are confidentiality restrictions preventing its disclosure. It was always inevitable that the exact figure agreed under the settlement agreement would be subject to confidentiality clauses preventing its disclosure into the public domain; this is a standard term of a settlement agreement

 

[Sutty]

To be honest, £130k in London isn't a massive salary: a lot of head teachers in biggish schools earn more... And that's not to mention the salaries of 25-year old management consultants...

The truth is that the death would only have been prevented with better resourced, trained and supported staff at the front line. Ball's intervention ensured that the first two conditions were never addressed and, as for the last one - support of social workers under extreme pressure in one of the poorest boroughs in Britain - well, he just stuck two fingers up at them...


Are you for real? I take it that you believe the NHS budget is ring-fenced...

Show me the proof that cuts had been made.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

Weightmans? (from Dec 2013)

Given the fact that the Court of Appeal decision was handed down in May 2011, it is clear that the settlement negotiations since then have been a lengthy process. Settlement was finally agreed at the eleventh hour before the parties were due to return to court.

The reality of the situation is that the remedy available to Sharon Shoesmith in the civil courts was likely to be far more valuable than what she could have been awarded in the Employment Tribunal. The relief sought from the Judicial Review proceedings included the quashing of the Council’s decision to dismiss her, which rendered the dismissal null and void. The finding in her favour by the Court of Appeal enabled Sharon Shoesmith to claim back her contractual entitlements, including pay and benefits from the date of her dismissal until her employment was lawfully terminated by the Council.

It has been reported that Shoesmith had initially sought compensation in the region of £1m. However, the Court of Appeal held that Shoesmith was entitled to a declaration that her dismissal was unlawful and also to compensation, which should be negotiated between the parties. The Judge gave guidance that the level of compensation considered should fall between a sum equivalent to three months' salary and pension contributions (which she would have received during her contractual notice period) and pay and other contractual benefits attached to her role as Director until her employment has been lawfully terminated by the Council.

The press have reported that the settlement sum that has now been agreed is in the region of £600,000, but the exact figure is unlikely to emerge given that there are confidentiality restrictions preventing its disclosure. It was always inevitable that the exact figure agreed under the settlement agreement would be subject to confidentiality clauses preventing its disclosure into the public domain; this is a standard term of a settlement agreement

In these circumstances, Ms Shoesmith's appeals against the Secretary of State and against Haringey are allowed, but against OFSTED her appeal is dismissed.

Unlless she "settled" on the ofsted part of her claim prior to taking the ofsted/dismissed part of her claim to the house of lords/supreme court?

She wouldn't need to settle the SoS part as the court of appeal upheld her appeal.

Edit: yes I think this^^ is correct.

 

[Occam's Razor]

In these circumstances, Ms Shoesmith's appeals against the Secretary of State and against Haringey are allowed, but against OFSTED her appeal is dismissed.

Unless she "settled" on the ofsted part of her claim prior to taking the ofsted/dismissed part of her claim to the house of lords/supreme court?

She wouldn't need to settle the SoS part as the Tribunal upheld her appeal.

Eh?

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

All fair enough. Reading your posts they jump logic and you cited myself and Mr Occam for having a pop at you. I can't speak for him but I found you to be objective to a point then plain obstinate.

If you think due process has been followed then great. Personally it sticks in my throat because she received the payout not because of unfair dismissal but a technicality. I find that galling.

So you think UK employment Law that protects us all, is nothing more than a "technicality"?

If you found out via the TV that you had been dismissed to appease all the viewers who think that "bankers" like you (even if you're not one it does not matter in the witch hunt) are all corrupt, without your Employer following any of it's contractual or legal obligations that you and all of your colleagues are entitled, because of an alleged wrong doing that had not been investigated, you'd think that was totally fine and you not object at all?

All fair enough. Reading your posts they jump logic and you cited myself and Mr Occam for having a pop at you. I can't speak for him but I found you to be objective to a point then plain obstinate.

Post numbers?

Eh?

I tried to add 83 to 79, not the sex bit, I've gone off the boil again now

Please read them together and respond re my question as to the point of an "out of court settlement" in cases that have already gone nearly all the way up the court chain. Unless like I said subsequently , the "settlement" was to stop her taking the ofsted bit of her claim to the supreme court. Supreme court/house of lords being her next possible step, or a meringue? She would not have needed to "settle" on her haringay part of her claim claim as it has been upheld.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I tried to add 83 to 79, not the sex bit, I've gone off the boil again now

Please read them together and respond re my question as to the point of an "out of court settlement" in cases that have already gone nearly all the way up the court chain. Unless like I said subsequently , the "settlement" was to stop her taking the ofsted bit of her claim to the supreme court. Supreme court/house of lords being her next possible step, or a meringue? She would not have needed to "settle" on her haringay part of her claim claim as it has been upheld.

I have to confess you've finally lost me. I don't know where your quote in red in post 83 is from, nor what it had to do with the Weightmans article it was in reponse to.

Sharon Shoesmith and Haringey Council agreed a settlement out of court. You keep saying you aren't convinced of this and it seems to be in truth the only thing we're been in disagreement about, excepting semantic arguments about employment tribunals. You asked for links and I've posted all sorts of links to all sorts of sources for this and nothing in the above does anything to disprove it. As late as post 76 you were still claiming not to have seen any proof of it being a settlement or an employment tribunal award. You would have posted a link to any evidence of a tribunal by now if such a thing existed. I can only assume you are being stubborn.

Anyway, here's LocalGovernmentLawyer on the matter, to go with the many links already posted...

The London Borough of Haringey and its former Director of Children’s Services, Sharon Shoesmith, have settled her case, it has been confirmed. A spokeswoman for the council said: “Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in favour of Ms Shoesmith, and the Court’s direction that the parties seek to resolve the issue of compensation, the London Borough of Haringey and Ms Shoesmith have reached a settlement in this case. She added: “The terms of the settlement are confidential. We are unable to comment further on this matter.”

[Blah, blah, blah...]

According to a report by the BBC’s Newsnight, a government source claimed that the settlement could cost Haringey up to £600,000. However, it said Shoesmith was likely to receive a much smaller sum.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

I have to confess you've finally lost me.

The London Borough of Haringey and its former Director of Children’s Services, Sharon Shoesmith, have settled her case, it has been confirmed. A spokeswoman for the council said: “Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in favour of Ms Shoesmith, and the Court’s direction that the parties seek to resolve the issue of compensation, the London Borough of Haringey and Ms Shoesmith have reached a settlement in this case. She added: “The terms of the settlement are confidential. We are unable to comment further on this matter.”

So it wasn't an "out of court settlement" at all as you claimed (being a settlement that is reached before court and before judgement is reached) it was "compensation" following judgement in Ms Shoesmith's favour in the court of appeal escalating from her ET court claim, as I have said all along.

The court however Directed them to attempt to resolve the issue of compensation themselves rather than awarding it.

The bit in red in my other post is an excerpt from the judgement from the court of appeal, which I have read and is the reason why I was asserting that this was not a "settlement out of court".

Feel free to read the COURT OF APPEAL judgement for yourself. No doubt you'll still come back and tell me it was an "out of court settlement".

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/642.html

 

[joemcdokes]

I worked for many years as a union representative and was sent on countless employment law courses. This was because the unions knew that employers were often ignorant when it came to matters of law. In one meeting I had with the company I worked for, I even had to explain custom and practice law to the director of HR.

The problem with this case is a child died in absolutely horrific circumstances, and the department Shoesmith was in charge of was partly responsible. She deserved to be sacked, and how she can shamelessly take this money shows the type of woman she is, but the people who sacked her incorrectly should also hold their heads in shame.

It was the way she was sacked..?

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

@Occam's Razor Contining from post 87, had the parties not been able to agree settlement for compensation as directed by the court, they would have had to return to court and the court would have awarded compensation.

IT was not an "out of court settlement" in any sense of the meaning.

"Agreements made to resolve disputes prior to legal judgement".

We're only stuck on the side issue of how employment tribunals may or may not operate because of your apparent insistence that Shoesmith's payout (posts 42 and 44) was awarded to her by a court or a tribunal. It wasn't.

It was. Via a Direction by the Court of Appeal that the parties try to agree the amount of compensation due to MS Shoesmith following her successful employment tribunal which ultimately ended up at the Court of Appeal.

So which court "awarded" Shoesmith those sums then?

The Court of Appeal, after escalation from the Employment Tribunal.

If you come back and say that it was an "out of court settlement" despite having now been made fully aware by me that there is in existence a (very expensive) Court of Appeal Judgement in Ms Shoesmiths favour I will never nominate you for intelligent post ever again!

 

[supernaut1968]

Aye the sacking was illegal and so legally it was just to award her compensation but it feels morally wrong that incompetence that played a part in such tragic and horrific circumstances it led to was rewarded with such a large sum of public money.

There are too many bigwigs in public funded organisations leave or get released then receive very large sums of money eg: The BBC.

As a result of the Tories telling councils, hospitals et al, 20 years ago, that they must pay the going rate if they want to attract the best managers from the private sector. The general feeling was that promoting from within was not as good as employing someone whose experience was in a different sector altogether and ignoring the fact they costing twice as much to employ.

Also, I read just recently that the CX of the Co op bank has been given a massive pay off, despite resigning from his post and being employed for less than 12 months...I find that far less palatable.

 

[monkeytassle]

Also, I read just recently that the CX of the Co op bank has been given a massive pay off, despite resigning from his post and being employed for less than 12 months...I find that far less palatable.

really?

So you think UK employment Law that protects us all, is nothing more than a "technicality"?

If you found out via the TV that you had been dismissed to appease all the viewers who think that "bankers" like you (even if you're not one it does not matter in the witch hunt) are all corrupt, without your Employer following any of it's contractual or legal obligations that you and all of your colleagues are entitled, because of an alleged wrong doing that had not been investigated, you'd think that was totally fine and you not object at all?

I think you are missing my point I'm not arguing about UK employment law.

She was head of an organisation whose failings resulted in the death of a baby. Serious failings. Ordinarily she'd be expected to fall on her sword for such a performance, after all that's why you get the big bucks. Clearly the sacking was mishandled but to award her 680 grand is just crazy. She should be entitled to her pay and benefits from her resignation period at absolute max.

680k is a kick in the face.

 

[vinegar hill]

It's at times like this that I think this country's fucked.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

So you think UK employment Law that protects us all, is nothing more than a "technicality"?

If you found out via the TV that you had been dismissed to appease all the viewers who think that "bankers" like you (even if you're not one it does not matter in the witch hunt) are all corrupt, without your Employer following any of it's contractual or legal obligations that you and all of your colleagues are entitled, because of an alleged wrong doing that had not been investigated, you'd think that was totally fine and you not object at all?



Post numbers?



I tried to add 83 to 79, not the sex bit, I've gone off the boil again now

Please read them together and respond re my question as to the point of an "out of court settlement" in cases that have already gone nearly all the way up the court chain. Unless like I said subsequently , the "settlement" was to stop her taking the ofsted bit of her claim to the supreme court. Supreme court/house of lords being her next possible step, or a meringue? She would not have needed to "settle" on her haringay part of her claim claim as it has been upheld.

I think the general view is that if the proper procedure had been followed the authorities would have been well within their rights to sack this incompetent piece of shit. However her employers and the government pushing for her dismissal proved to be even more incompetent pieces of shit. The ET is correct in law but people are entitled to be angry at the widespread clusterfuck that led to this outcome.

 

[monkeytassle]

I think the general view is that if the proper procedure had been followed the authorities would have been well within their rights to sack this incompetent piece of shit. However her employers and the government pushing for her dismissal proved to be even more incompetent pieces of shit. The ET is correct in law but people are entitled to be angry at the widespread clusterfuck that led to this outcome.

correct

 

[Silksworth Lad]

I think this is a decent summation of the case from an article about the systemic problems which underlie such cases...

"Sharon Shoesmith is a product of the system created by an incompetent government incapable of asking the right people the right questions who then became a scapegoat to cover up for the government’s incompetence...

Mistakes were made and it is a tragic and sad affair when a child dies. We have a responsibility to create a system that works and put people who know how to do their job in the system well. The cases of Victoria Climbie and Peter Connelly at the beginning of the Labour Government and at the end show how not to create the system we need. Ed Balls shows everything that was wrong with the Labour Government: he did not trust the professionals, he ignored the voices of the majority, he was too susceptible to lobbying (particularly IT companies), he created an authoritarian and bureaucratic system, he was unwilling to accept responsibility for his mistakes, he had no knowledge of the brief of what he was supposed to be doing, he thought the law did not apply to him and he could do what he liked, and his department spent all the money in the wrong places at the wrong time in the wrong way.

Good government is the opposite of Ed Balls:

• trust the people we train to do the job we train them to do (we do not need to then create a system which takes more time proving they are doing their job than it takes to do the job)
• listen to the voices of the majority of people who work in the area (they have lots of skills and knowledge and will know better than anyone what needs to be done to get the system to work)
• Use technology requested by the professionals not by the lobbyists who say it will help the professionals
• be willing to accept responsibility for mistakes in government
• ensure ministers have some knowledge of the area of their brief
• always remain within the law
• money does not solve problems, well researched, advised, and consulted plans solve problems and the money helps create the right system. Sometimes money makes the problem worse."

 

[Occam's Razor]

So it wasn't an "out of court settlement" at all as you claimed (being a settlement that is reached before court and before judgement is reached) it was "compensation" following judgement in Ms Shoesmith's favour in the court of appeal escalating from her ET court claim, as I have said all along.

FFS man, woman, man.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Sharon Shoesmith had been unfairly dismissed. That is not in dispute.

But the sum of money Shoesmith received was not awarded to her by the Court of Appeal, by an Employment Tribunal, or by any other body. It was agreed by Shoesmith and Haringey Council just before the case was due to return to the High Court.

@Occam's RazorIt was not an "out of court settlement" in any sense of the meaning.

So what are your thoughts on the BBC saying this...

Now Haringey Council has reached an agreement over compensation with Ms Shoesmith.

Or Greenwoods Solicitors employment blog saying this...

the former Director of Haringey’s Children’s Services, Sharon Shoesmith, has entered into an out of court settlement with Haringey Council for a reported six figure payout

Or QDOS Consulting saying this...

Following lengthy legal wrangling, the Director of Children’s Services in the London Borough of Haringey where Peter lived , Sharon Shoesmith, has finally agreed an out of court settlement of a reported £500,000 plus

Or Local Government Lawyer saying this...

The London Borough of Haringey and its former Director of Children’s Services, Sharon Shoesmith, have settled her case, it has been confirmed.

Or Kingsley Napley saying this...

After all Ms Shoesmith was an employee on a reported annual salary of £133,000. How come she managed to secure a negotiated settlement which is said to be as much as £600,000? Outside those who negotiated the deal, no one actually knows

Or Weightmans saying this...

The settlement negotiations since then have been a lengthy process. Settlement was finally agreed at the eleventh hour before the parties were due to return to court.

I could go on...

Now if you could provide just one link (as requested earlier) to the specific sum of money Shoesmith received being awarded to her by some third party (ie not agreed outside of court, not negotiated between Shoesmith and Haringey Council) then I would be grateful. I don't mean a link to show that she was unfairly dismissed, or that a court had said she was entitled to some undefined level of compensation, I mean a court or tribunal defining exactly how much money she received as that is what you keep claiming.

It was an out of court settlement.

@Occam's RazorIf you come back and say that it was an "out of court settlement" despite having now been made fully aware by me that there is in existence a (very expensive) Court of Appeal Judgement in Ms Shoesmiths favour I will never nominate you for intelligent post ever again!

Ah well.

 

[supernaut1968]

I think this is a decent summation of the case from an article about the systemic problems which underlie such cases...

"Sharon Shoesmith is a product of the system created by an incompetent government incapable of asking the right people the right questions who then became a scapegoat to cover up for the government’s incompetence...

Mistakes were made and it is a tragic and sad affair when a child dies. We have a responsibility to create a system that works and put people who know how to do their job in the system well. The cases of Victoria Climbie and Peter Connelly at the beginning of the Labour Government and at the end show how not to create the system we need. Ed Balls shows everything that was wrong with the Labour Government: he did not trust the professionals, he ignored the voices of the majority, he was too susceptible to lobbying (particularly IT companies), he created an authoritarian and bureaucratic system, he was unwilling to accept responsibility for his mistakes, he had no knowledge of the brief of what he was supposed to be doing, he thought the law did not apply to him and he could do what he liked, and his department spent all the money in the wrong places at the wrong time in the wrong way.

Good government is the opposite of Ed Balls:

• trust the people we train to do the job we train them to do (we do not need to then create a system which takes more time proving they are doing their job than it takes to do the job)
• listen to the voices of the majority of people who work in the area (they have lots of skills and knowledge and will know better than anyone what needs to be done to get the system to work)
• Use technology requested by the professionals not by the lobbyists who say it will help the professionals
• be willing to accept responsibility for mistakes in government
• ensure ministers have some knowledge of the area of their brief
• always remain within the law
• money does not solve problems, well researched, advised, and consulted plans solve problems and the money helps create the right system. Sometimes money makes the problem worse."

If we're apportioning blame to Governments, then surely the first case happened as a result of Tory policies, if it happened at the beginning of the Blair's government? Just saying like!