20 Jan High Court grants permission for judicial review to proceed against the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office amidst sanctioning of Employment Judge
On 15 January 2026, the High Court granted permission on all grounds for three clients represented by DPG, Susannah Hickman‑Gray, Alison McDermott and Dr Hinaa Toheed, to proceed to a final hearing in their judicial review challenge against the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (“JCIO”).
The claim concerns the JCIO’s alleged failure to adequately investigate serious allegations of misconduct by Employment Judge Philip Lancaster. Employment Judge Lancaster is a judge about whom numerous complaints of judicial bullying and inappropriate conduct have been raised by litigants, and observers, over at least seven years. Formal complaints lodged with the JCIO have either been dismissed on procedural grounds or stayed for years pending resolution. As a consequence, Judge Lancaster has remained in post, and his conduct has continued to adversely affect litigants who have come before him.
The number of those impacted has grown so large that the BBC has reported on Judge Lancaster’s conduct and the complaints about him on several occasions, describing a pattern of bullying, excessive intervention and extreme rudeness across numerous hearings.
In their claim for judicial review, the Claimants argue that the JCIO has acted unlawfully, unreasonably, and unfairly by:
- applying a narrow and incorrect interpretation of the definition of misconduct, including the assertion that when bullying takes place in the context of case management the JCIO is not empowered to investigate it;
- imposing arbitrary investigative requirements, including requiring complaints to identify a precise estimate of the time when the alleged misconduct took place, or identify the precise words used, which is procedurally unfair in circumstances where complainants are routinely refused access to audio records or transcripts of their hearings, and may be unrepresented;
- failing to take relevant matters into account, including by examining complaints in isolation rather than considering their cumulative effect;
- arbitrarily dismissing new complaints and failing to consider whether there was significant new evidence across the group of complaints of a pattern of conduct over multiple hearings;
- making material errors of fact, including wrongly stating that complaints had already been “dealt with” when they remained outstanding; and
- failing to consider whether an investigation should have been opened on the JCIO’s own initiative once the allegations against Judge Lancaster had been brought to their attention.
The Claimants argue that the JCIO’s conduct in handling their complaints reflects systemic failings, many of which were identified in an Independent Review by Baroness Harriet Harman KC, published on 8 September 2025.
In granting permission in full for the Claimants to proceed to a substantive hearing, Mr Justice Johnson observed:
“It is arguable that although there is a conceptual difference between misconduct and judicial case management, they are not mutually exclusive, such that complaints of misconduct may be investigated under the 2023 Rules even if the alleged conduct took place in the context of judicial case management. If so, it is arguable that it is an error of law to find that conduct cannot amount to misconduct if it relates to a judicial decision or judicial case management…”
The Court has directed that Judge Lancaster be joined as an Interested Party, enabling him to participate in the proceedings, and has granted the Claimants a costs‑capping order, recognising that the claim raises issues of wider public importance. The case will now proceed to a final hearing to be listed, most likely later this year. The Claimants are Crowdfunding for the case here: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/exposing-judge-lancaster/
On the same date that permission was granted, the JCIO announced that the Lady Chief Justice, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, had issued Judge Lancaster with “formal advice for misconduct”. This finding was in respect of a complaint by Dr Toheed which was made almost four years ago, after Dr Toheed’s barrister recorded that during her employment tribunal hearing in February 2022 Judge Lancaster shouted at her at least 16 times. Dr. Toheed has stated: “I came to court because I was being bullied by a man only to be bullied by another man”. In upholding Dr Toheed’s complaint, 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 and the President was said to have taken into account Judge Lancaster’s personal mitigation, expression of remorse and his “20-year unblemished conduct record as a judge”.
Emily Soothill, partner and solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn, has said:
“We are pleased that Dr Toheed has finally been vindicated, especially when the vast majority of complaints against judges are dismissed. However, the level of sanction given to Judge Lancaster was lessened on account of his “20-year unblemished conduct record as a judge” when we are aware that numerous complaints of judicial bullying and inappropriate conduct have been raised against this same judge over at least seven years. It is very concerning that the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor were not made aware of this and we consider that this is indicative of the systemic issues within the judicial complaints system which our clients have raised.
It is fitting, therefore, that on the same day as this sanction against Judge Lancaster was announced, the High Court granted permission on all grounds for our clients to proceed to a substantive hearing in their claim for judicial review against the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office regarding its handling of their complaints against Judge Lancaster. This decision recognises the seriousness of the potential failings in how complaints against the judiciary are investigated and the importance of the public being able to have confidence in those processes”.
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.
You can read further press-coverage of the case here: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/shouting-judge-humiliated-me-at-my-sex-discrimination-tribunal-khr7x8585?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqdpWp2CUf4tBDIp6427ntYclREokeoehy3TXaTt-2jA7VKzl3ppD8ra&gaa_ts=696f5d66&gaa_sig=z-6FxadnGskFxSVYP30qmRsCfRo0LEXZOIzq_jTXMZ5KoWhpc9fmK6mBUmatIc5igGrrYgqrQsc-2N9qxK8ykg%3D%3D
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3vwzd01n5o
For further information please contact mail@dpglaw.co.uk
Share this story
