Judgment and reason delays lead to sanctions for tribunal judges

Two tribunal judges have been sanctioned over their delays in providing either a judgment or statement of reasons - with one explaining a change in working practices had ‘negatively contributed’ to his workload. 

An Upper Tribunal judge has been issued with a formal warning for misconduct over an ‘unreasonable’ 18-month delay in delivering a judgment.

A solicitor complained to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) that Upper Tribunal judge Jonathan Perkins had delayed issuing a judgment in their client’s case for 18 months. The lawyer had contacted the court ‘several times’ to chase the outstanding judgment and the delay had been ‘impacting their client’s wellbeing’.

Perkins accepted the delay in issuing the judgment was ‘unacceptable’ and apologised, a spokesperson for the JCIO said. 

The investigation found the misconduct ‘was aggravated by the length of the delay, the failure to address the solicitor’s requests to chase the judgment and the fact that Upper Tribunal judge Jonathan Perkins was aware at the time that he had previously received a sanction for another excessively delayed judgment’.

The lady chief justice, with the lord chancellor’s agreement, issued the judge with a formal warning.

Tribunal judge David Roberts was also subject to a complaint that he failed to provide a statement of reasons following a hearing in November 2023. The delay prevented the complainant from appealing to the Upper Tribunal.

Roberts, who has an unblemished record, cited personal circumstances for the delay and said a change in working practices within the courts had negatively contributed to his workload and work pressures. 

An investigation found there had been a three-month delay which was a breach of the ‘standards of conduct expected of judicial office holders which was serious enough to require a disciplinary sanction’. The impact of the changes to working practices on Roberts’ workload were found to be ‘significant’.

The lady chief justice, with the lord chancellor’s agreement, issued the judge with formal advice for misconduct.