THE DOCTOR at the centre of Jersey’s rheumatology scandal has cleared the first hurdle in a legal battle with his former employer after a tribunal refused to delay the case – despite ongoing investigations into patient deaths.
The Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal has rejected an application by the States Employment Board – the official employer of all government workers – to halt proceedings brought by former consultant Dr Michael Richardson, who claims he was unfairly dismissed after more than 30 years of service.
The tribunal made clear that justice should not be stalled on the basis of uncertain future findings, ruling that the risk of prejudice to the employer was “speculative”, while the harm to Dr Richardson from further delay was “certain”.
The doctor was dismissed by the Health Department on 13 June 2025 following a three-and-a-half year suspension.
Restrictions were imposed on his clinical practice following the publication of a review into the Island’s rheumatology department – led by Dr Richardson – which found that scores of patients had been wrongly prescribed strong drugs.
But restrictions on his practice were lifted last year, with Dr Richardson arguing that he has since been “fully exonerated” by the medical regulator. He also claims age and disability discrimination.
Dr Richardson is seeking either reinstatement or re-engagement, or compensation from his former employer.
The States Employment Board denies the claims, arguing that reinstating the doctor would risk undermining public confidence and damaging staff morale.
The board also claimed that the working relationship with Dr Richardson had “irretrievably broken down”.
But the main reason that the board wanted to pause the tribunal case was to wait for the outcome of a coronial process examining dozens of patient deaths linked to rheumatology healthcare.
A letter from the States of Jersey Police explained that the Health Department had referred several rheumatology patient cases to the police and the Viscount, “where a potential link between treatment concerns and patient death was identified, or where this link could not be excluded”.
But, as reported in the JEP earlier this month, police concluded the legal test for gross negligence manslaughter had not been met.
No criminal investigation will be launched, but all matters have been passed to the Viscount’s Department, which will independently determine whether formal inquests are required in each of the deaths.
“This process is ongoing and there are 34 cases to be reviewed by the medical expert as part of the Coronial process,” the letter from States police said. “This will be a lengthy process, expected to span at least several months and into next year.”
The tribunal found there was no clear evidence that any future inquests would directly implicate Dr Richardson, or that their findings would be decisive in the employment case.
The tribunal warned that the employer’s concerns were “speculative”, noting that there was “little clarity about the scope of the inquest”.
“The viscount may or may not conduct an inquest into one or more of 34 deaths,” the judgment said.
“We do not know who those deceased people are and the extent to which Dr Richardson was involved in their care.
“We do not know the likelihood of Dr Richardson being expressly or implicitly criticised to an extent that his employment would compromise Health and Care Jersey’s reputation with the public.”
Dismissing the employer’s argument about missing future evidence, the tribunal said: “I do not consider that the inability to rely on that evidence causes real prejudice.”
By contrast, the impact on Dr Richardson was immediate and serious. The judgment highlighted that the doctor has already been out of clinical work for over four years.
“There is also the emotional toll on him of dealing with the litigation,” the judgment noted.
The tribunal also warned that any delay would not be short, with Dr Richardson’s chances of returning to work diminishing as the length of the delay increased.
Balancing the competing interests, the tribunal concluded: “Currently the risk to the States Employment Board is speculative while the impact of delay on Dr Richardson is certain.”
Rather than grant a full delay, as the employer requested, the tribunal ordered a split trial, stressing that avoiding delay “is part of dealing with cases fairly and justly”.
A five-day hearing to determine liability will proceed in July 2026, with any decision on remedies – such as reinstatement or compensation – to follow later.
The door has also been left open for the States Employment Board to renew its application to pause the proceedings after the liability ruling.
