The First Deemster has ruled that the chairman of the employment tribunal should no longer preside over a case being brought against Manx Care.

In a judgment, Deemster Andrew Corlett said a ‘fair-minded and informed observer’ would conclude there was a ‘real possibility that the chairman is biased’ or that Manx Care would not receive a fair hearing.

His judgment followed concerns raised by employment tribunal chairman Douglas Stewart about what he described as ‘intimidatory’ tactics being used in the defence of cases against Manx Care.

Mr Stewart said claimants felt they faced an uneven playing field when taking on a part of government, citing the weight, resources and experience of the Attorney General’s chambers.

He said the AG’s chambers, representing government departments and boards, were now ‘frequently’ alleging that claimants had engaged in vexatious, abusive, disruptive, or otherwise unreasonable conduct.

‘Such an allegation is bound to be disturbing and would intimidate the typical complainant - especially if without legal representation,’ he said, adding it could also be ‘intimidatory’ when Chambers warned it may seek costs.

In an unusual step, Manx Care lodged an appeal against various interlocutory decisions and orders of the Employment and Equality Tribunal made between August and October 2025.

It asked the court to set aside several paragraphs of those decisions and orders and to remove Mr Stewart from chairing any further hearings in the case of Dr Kelly Anne Elliott v Manx Care.

Attorney General Walter Wannenburgh said suggestions of intimidation by his Chambers, and that its lawyers might be acting unreasonably, were ‘grossly unfair and wrong’.

He also complained that recent rulings had been published in the media and that neither Manx Care nor members of his Chambers had been given an opportunity to respond to allegations made against them, which he said had come ‘out of the blue’.

Mr Stewart made his comments about ‘intimidatory’ tactics while reviewing an order he had made in a tribunal claim brought by Zodwa Theresa Taylor against Manx Care.

Her case, which was one of three before the tribunal involving claims of whistleblowing or discrimination against Manx Care, has since been settled.

Deemster Corlett concluded there had been ‘a failure to adhere to the requirements of procedural fairness’, giving rise to a ‘justifiable perception by the fair-minded and informed observer of a real possibility of bias’.

Ordering that Mr Stewart should no longer preside over the case of Dr Elliott v Manx Care, he said: ‘I am satisfied that the chairman has unfortunately provided further and sufficient ammunition for the appellant’s recusal application to succeed.’

He also ordered the removal of references in previous orders to cases being abandoned or struck out ‘too often’, and to complainants being faced with strike-out and costs sanctions ‘with increasing frequency’.

The appeal was not concerned with the underlying merits of the complaints.

Dr Elliott’s tribunal claim has been adjourned to a date to be fixed.