Trial Deemster would likely have been replaced 

Acting Deemster Corbett stepped down without issuing a ruling

An acting deemster who resigned from a long running civil trial without ever issuing a verdict had previously offered to resign months before stepping down. 

James Corbett KC stepped down from the trial of multi-million pound claims against Friends Provident and the Utmost Group two years after final submissions were heard. 

Mr Corbett concluded hearing the stage 1 trial of a group litigation claim involving the alleged mis -selling of investment products. 

The hearing lasted 20 working days, over a six week period and having heard evidence and legal argument, Mr Corbett indicated that he would circulate his judgment in the autumn of 2024.

In June 2025, two parties complained to the Judicial Conduct Office (JCO) due to the lack of a ruling, with Mr Corbett accepting there were no reasonable grounds for the delay.

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

In November 2025, a further complaint was made, with the issue also being raised to First Deemster Andrew Corlett. 

Mr Corbett then suffered a serious fall later that month and was contacted by Mr Corlett and asked to attend an in-person meeting on the Island. 

During that meeting, Mr Corbett said he was ashamed of the lack of a ruling and offered his resignation.

A statement from the JCO said: "The First Deemster stressed the reputational damage to the Island’s judiciary and the detriment to the parties arising from the delay. 

"The primary focus of everyone was the receipt of the judgment; outstanding matters could be attended to afterwards. This led to a revised timetable being produced which was agreed and communicated to the parties."

Three days later Mr Corbett suffered a stroke.

In March, it was determined that he was able to work and a new timetable was set for a ruling. 

However, on 1 June, First Deemster Corlett wrote to Mr Corbett asking him to reflect on his health and likelihood of delivering a timely ruling. 

Mr Corbett then resigned the next day due to ill-health and accepted he had been over optimistic in his recovery. 

The JCO said: "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."

It added: "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 despite the First Deemster’s interventions."

It also noted that Mr Corlett had been minded to insist on Mr Corbett being replaced had he not offered to stand down. 

"Had Mr Corbett not made this decision, the First Deemster was minded, given the apparent absence of a realistic prospect of the judgment being completed within a reasonable and realistic timeframe, to recommend his removal from office."

 In light of Mr Corbett's resignation no further disciplinary action is necessary or, arguably, permissible.