Soothill: Decision a testament to clients’ perseverance
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) has agreed to reinvestigate allegations of bullying and intimidation against Employment Judge Philip Lancaster, in light of “significant new evidence” relating to his conduct.
Last August, the JCIO dismissed complaints made by three women about EJ Lancaster’s behaviour during a series of employment tribunals which took place in Leeds between February 2022 and February 2025.
The JCIO said the majority of allegations of misconduct could not be investigated if they relate to “judicial case management”.
He has been accused of bullying both litigants-in-person and lawyers, including “shouting, harsh and inappropriate personal criticisms, intimidation and interruption of evidence”.
In January, the three women – Alison McDermott, Susanna Hickman-Gray and Dr Hinaa Toheed – were granted permission to seek judicial review of the JCIO’s decision.
A hearing was due to start at the High Court on 8 June but was withdrawn this week after the JCIO agreed to reopen and reinvestigate multiple complaints of bullying and intimidation against EJ Lancaster.
The Government Legal Department has agreed to pay the women’s costs.
According to Doughty Street Chambers – whose barrister Finan Clarke was one of their counsel –this was an “extraordinary climbdown” for the JCIO, but a “significant victory” for the women.
Their solicitor, Emily Soothill, a partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn, said: “We are delighted that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has conceded our clients’ claim for judicial review in full and agreed that our clients’ numerous complaints of judicial misconduct against Employment Judge Lancaster will now be re-considered.
“Our clients have been fighting for their complaints against Judge Lancaster to be properly investigated for many years and this outcome is a testament to their perseverance and dedication.”
The legal team is now trying to get hold of the transcripts, audio files and EJ Lancaster’s handwritten notes from the tribunals at the heart of this case, so the JCIO can carry out a “fair and effective investigation” of all the misconduct allegations.
The parties – the claimants and the JCIO, with EJ Lancaster named as an interested party – signed a statement of reasons on 8 May.
This said: “The JCIO accepts that the decision of 4 August 2025 contained statements of the law that were not precise or accurate.
“The JCIO has stated in writing that it agrees with the claimants and accepts that complaints of misconduct may be investigated under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023, even if the alleged conduct took place in the context of judicial case management, if the complaint is about a judge’s conduct and not the content or substance of his judicial decisions; and that conduct can thus amount to misconduct even if it relates to a judicial decision or judicial case management.”
The JCIO has now agreed that its decision last August “did not fully engage with the cumulative nature of the complaint and accepts that repeated acts are capable of raising a question of misconduct when viewed cumulatively.”
It accepted that the complaints made by the three women constituted allegations of an accumulating pattern of conduct which amounted to “significant new evidence”.
In relation to Ms Hickman-Gray’s case, the JCIO said it was “appropriate” to now consider every part of her complaint, including three allegations where she could not give a precise timing for when the alleged misconduct took place during the employment tribunal.
Previously, the JCIO insisted on being given exact quotes and timings as proof – whilst at the same time denying people access to transcripts from the hearings.
Ms McDermott, an HR consultant, said: “I cannot adequately describe the stress of receiving call after call from different women describing strikingly similar experiences in Judge Lancaster’s courtroom.
“Dr Toheed and I warned the president of the employment tribunal system that a serious pattern was emerging. However, no meaningful action followed, even as further complaints built up.
“Now, after four years of raising our concerns, the JCIO has finally accepted that these complaints must be properly investigated – but only after enormous delay and expense, while others may potentially have been exposed to the same conduct in the meantime.
“No justice system worthy of public confidence should operate like that.”
Dr Toheed said: “If multiple complaints had been made about me as a doctor over a five-year period, I would have expected to be suspended pending proper investigation.
“Instead, repeated complaints concerning Judge Lancaster were allowed to accumulate over years while he continued to hear cases. That is a shocking failure of accountability,”
Another complaint raised by Dr Toheed was held in abeyance pending her appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and only investigated after these legal proceedings were initiated.
It was successful, with the JCIO issuing the judge with formal advice for misconduct in January after he was found to have created a “hostile environment” for a party.
Leave a Comment