Judicial Conduct Investigations Office Concedes Landmark Claim Relating To Failure To Investigate Judge Lancaster

When Alison McDermott, Dr Hinaa Toheed and Susanna Hickman‑Gray issued a claim for judicial review against the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (“JCIO”), it was the first time that the judicial regulator had faced scrutiny over its interpretation of “judicial misconduct”.

These three women brought their landmark legal challenge on behalf of a group of at least 10 complainants, each claiming to have suffered bullying, intimidation, banging of the table and/or excessive interruption from Employment Judge Lancaster during the course of their Employment Tribunal hearings over the last 7 years. The number of those alleging misconduct by Judge Lancaster had grown so large that the BBC had reported on his conduct and the complaints about him on several occasions, yet the group’s concerns had been repeatedly dismissed. As a consequence, Judge Lancaster has remained in post, and his conduct has continued to adversely affect litigants who have come before him.

In a significant victory for the Claimants, the JCIO has now agreed to withdraw each of its previous decisions and to reopen and reinvestigate the complaints against Judge Lancaster in full.

Prior to bringing these legal proceedings, the JCIO refused to investigate the majority of the complaints on the basis that they could not amount to misconduct as they took place within the context of “case management”, which, the JCIO said, was an untouchable part of the judicial function that it cannot scrutinise. Others were rejected on the basis that a specific time stamp for the alleged misconduct had not been provided, despite the fact that all complainants were denied transcripts of their hearings, and many did not have lawyers. The JCIO dismissed the one complaint it did investigate on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct. 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. In upholding Dr Toheed’s complaint in January 2026, the President of the Employment Tribunals found that Judge Lancaster had “raised his voice on several occasions” and interrupted Dr Toheed’s evidence during cross-examination “to an extent which was inappropriate, and which created a hostile environment”. However, the lowest level of sanction was recommended and issued to Judge Lancaster, partly based on his “20-year unblemished conduct record as a judge”. In the light of the Claimants’ complaints which the JCIO has now agreed to investigate, the reasoning for this low sanction is clearly wrong.

Many of the issues brought to light in this claim mirror the problems highlighted by Harriet Harman in her ‘Independent review of bullying and harassment at the Bar’, published on 8 September 2025. She stated that she was concerned “by the rejection of some … allegations on the grounds that ‘case management’ is out of scope. Bullying can still take place in the context of case management decisions”. She also raised concerns that the requirement “to identify the exact or approximate timings of the alleged misconduct” was an “unreasonable threshold”.

On 15 January 2026, Mr Justice Johnson granted permission in full for the Claimants to proceed to a substantive hearing which was due to take place on 8 and 9 June 2026 at the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court also granted the Claimants a costs‑capping order, recognising that the claim raises issues of wider public importance, and the Claimants were Crowdfunding to cover the adverse cost risk and their legal fees.

Despite initially defending the claim, the JCIO has been forced into an extraordinary climbdown just weeks before the final hearing. In doing so, the JCIO has conceded the claim in full and has accepted that its insistence on the provision of precise timings and/or language for complaints of misconduct was inappropriate in this case; that the JCIO had not properly considered complaints that repeated rude and hostile interventions constituted misconduct when considered cumulatively; and that each of the complaints comprising the Group Complaint will now be reconsidered notwithstanding that they were previously dismissed.

Crucially, the JCIO has also conceded that complaints of misconduct can be investigated under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023, even if the alleged conduct took place in the context of judicial case management, as long as the complaint is about a judge’s conduct and not the content or substance of judicial decisions. The JCIO has thus accepted that conduct can amount to misconduct even if it relates to a judicial decision or judicial case management.

The parties have agreed a Statement of Reasons which the JCIO will be publishing on its website confirming that its previous understanding, and pleaded interpretation, of Rule 23(c) of the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 was incorrect and that complaints concerning case management do fall within the JCIO’s remit if they also raise an issue of misconduct.

This is not yet the end of the story as the Claimants intend to keep fighting to ensure that the JCIO’s new investigation into their complaints about Judge Lancaster is conducted lawfully. They are also continuing to seek disclosure of the transcripts, audio files and/or the judge’s handwritten notes of their hearings as it is considered that the JCIO cannot carry out a fair and effective investigation if the victim of the misconduct is disabled in describing their experience to investigators, by being denied access to the official recordings of the hearing.

Dr. Toheed, whose story has been reported widely, stated: “I came to court because I was being bullied by a man only to be bullied by another man. 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 and, in my view, brings the system into disrepute.”

Alison McDermott has 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 Emma Runswick, BMA Deputy Chair of Council, has said:

"All workers, when bringing an employment claim, rightly expect the process and the people involved to be fair and professional. For doctors, claims often centre on whistleblowing, discrimination or bullying and toxic cultures that impact the safety of patients, so we must have a process that the public can trust.

“The highest professional standards are rightly demanded of doctors. The judiciary must be held accountable in the same way. We will be following developments in this case closely, given the involvement of doctors and the likely implications it will have for our members ”.

Emily Soothill, partner and solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn, has 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.

This is the first time in its history that the JCIO has had its interpretation of “judicial misconduct” challenged and, importantly, the JCIO has conceded that its previous understanding, and pleaded interpretation, of Rule 23(c) of the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023 was incorrect and that complaints concerning case management can be investigated by the JCIO if they also raise an issue of misconduct.

It is crucial that the JCIO now undertakes a proper and lawful investigation into the numerous complaints of judicial bullying and inappropriate conduct which have been raised against Judge Lancaster over at least seven years so that public confidence in how complaints against the judiciary are investigated can start to be restored".

Emily Soothill, Catherine Dowle and Öykü Aktaş of Deighton Pierce Glynn are instructed by the Claimants. Counsel instructed in the claim are Charlotte Kilroy KC of Blackstone Chambers and Finnian Clarke of Doughty Street Chambers.