A group of ten individuals, self-identified as whistleblowers, have secured a significant legal victory in their case against a tribunal judge accused of misconduct. Employment Judge Philip Lancaster faces allegations of bullying and intimidation during employment tribunal hearings, claims that have now been acknowledged by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).
Allegations Against Judge Lancaster
The complainants allege that Judge Lancaster shouted at female claimants, blocked evidence, and assisted employers in concealing scandals. Alison McDermott, a lead complainant and HR consultant, raised safety concerns in her claim against the Sellafield nuclear processing site in Cumbria. She stated that the group experienced bullying and intimidation during hearings presided over by Lancaster.
The JCIO, responsible for overseeing tribunal conduct, issued a statement confirming its error. A spokesperson said: “The JCIO has accepted that it erred in rejecting or dismissing a number of complaints that it received about Employment Judge Lancaster in its initial consideration of those complaints. It has therefore agreed to reconsider those complaints. The JCIO cannot comment on the detail of its investigation.”
Complainants' Perspectives
Yorkshire-based Alison McDermott, aged 60, told the Mirror: “The cases involve nuclear safety, patient safety and child safety. We are not talking about disputes over holiday pay. In each case, the complainants' evidence regarding matters of significant public interest was ignored.” The group, comprising nine women and one man, is represented by human rights law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn.
Solicitor Emily Soothill expressed delight at the outcome: “We are delighted that they have conceded our clients’ claim for judicial review in full and agreed. Our clients’ numerous complaints of judicial misconduct against Employment Judge Lancaster will now be reconsidered. They have fought for years to have their complaints against Judge Lancaster properly investigated; this outcome is a testament to their perseverance and dedication.” She added that a proper investigation is crucial for restoring public confidence.
Broader Concerns
Lancaster, an employment tribunal judge based in Leeds, had previously had most allegations dismissed without examination. The JCIO has now agreed to reconsider those complaints. Three of the complainants—McDermott, Dr Hinaa Toheed, and Susannah Hickman-Gray—launched judicial review proceedings against the JCIO, which led to the concession.
Dr Hinaa Toheed, a GP, questioned why action was not taken earlier: “If multiple complaints had been made about the same doctor, that would have raised alarm bells and led to an investigation. Yet despite repeated concerns about Judge Lancaster's conduct, he continued to preside over cases while complainants were battling simply to be heard.” The women are also raising serious questions about the role of Judge Barry Clarke, President of Employment Tribunals in England and Wales, who they claim was repeatedly informed of complaints but took no meaningful action.
In a letter to Toheed, Clarke wrote that Lancaster should receive formal advice for his conduct, taking into account his “previous good record.” McDermott added: “I cannot adequately describe the stress of receiving call after call from different women about Judge Lancaster, describing strikingly similar experiences in his courtroom. Now, after four years of raising concerns, the JCIO has finally accepted that these complaints must be properly investigated but only after enormous stress, delay and expense. No justice system worthy of public confidence should operate like that.”
