An Acting Deemster contravened the judiciary’s Code of Conduct by failing to decide a high-profile civil case within a reasonable time.

Following an investigation, the Judicial Conduct Office has ruled that Acting Deemster James Corbett KC’s earlier delays in handing down judgment amounted to misconduct.

First Deemster Andrew Corlett said that had not Acting Deemster Corlette resigned on grounds of ill health, he would have recommended his removal from office.

The multi-million pound class action against Friends Provident and the Utmost Group was heard over six weeks and concluded in May 2024, but no judgment was ever handed down.

In that time 17 claimants have passed away.

The court has confirmed the case will now go to a retrial and it is seeking to hire a retired English High Court judge to hear the proceedings.

Claimants have called for the Manx government to cover the costs of a retrial.

A joint complaint by two of the parties to the case was made to the Judicial Conduct Office in June last year and referred to the First Deemster.

The Acting Deemster accepted there were no reasonable grounds for the delay.

He accepted he’d failed to adequately manage his own workload and workflows and realisation as to the enormity of the task had, at times, been paralysing to progress.

Then in November a complaint by another party to the case was made, again on the grounds of delay.

Later that same month, Mr Corbett suffered a serious fall causing concussion.

In early January, he met with the First Deemster during which said he was ashamed about the delay and offered his resignation.

Three days later, the Acting Deemster suffered a stroke.

Following treatment and a positive medical assessment, a further timetable for the draft judgment was set.

But in May, the Acting Deemster reported that symptoms had started to recur.

In early June, he accepted he had made over-optimistic commitments - and tendered his resignation with immediate effect.

In a statement, the Judicial Conduct Office said while Mr Corbett’s health had been responsible for the latter delays, the earlier delays were in part a result of a failure to adequately manage his own workload, despite support and resources being offered.

It said: ‘This can only be considered misconduct.

‘A delay of the magnitude in this case is plainly unacceptable and leads not only to frustration and added anxiety for the parties but also more generally to a loss of public confidence in our justice system.

‘The First Deemster is satisfied that Mr Corbett did contravene the Code of Conduct by failing to decide this case within a reasonable time. The complaint is upheld against a background of Mr Corbett’s misconduct, ill health and the fact that a finished judgment has never been produced.’

In light of his resignation, no further disciplinary action is deemed necessary.

The statement said new professional roles taken on by Mr Corbett since his resignation did not involve substantial professional activity and were not relevant to an assessment on whether he could carry out an Acting Deemster’s functions.