The test for bias was set in Porter v Magill. It is "Whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased." This is regarded as a high bar, and it is difficult for us to judge as we are not what the courts would consider fair-minded. Apart from the occasional interloper, everyone on these threads supports Sandie. It is pretty common for people to think the tribunal is biased when it makes a decision they don't agree with. The question is whether someone with no views one way or the other would consider the tribunal biased rather than simply incompetent.
Robust questioning, evidence management and sharp remarks by a judge are all regarded as legitimate case management rather than evidence of bias.
Findings of bias are rare. I wouldn't personally say that this is the legal system closing ranks. In my view it is right that the bar for proving bias is high, so it is very difficult for any appellant to get over. We don't want an appeal to succeed simply on the grounds that the judge was a bit mean, or that the appellant doesn't agree with the outcome and therefore thinks the judge was biased.
One of the problems with finding this ET biased is that the judgment in Kelly v Leonardo came out before this one. Whilst it was not a binding precedent, the tribunal was entitled to regard it as persuasive. The EAT may therefore take the view that following that precedent was not evidence of bias.
Do I think this ET was biased? Yes, but I have to acknowledge that I am biased in favour of Sandie. Would a fair-minded and informed observer think it was biased? I don't know. To succeed on this ground, Sandie's legal team first need to persuade a judge to allow them to put this argument to the EAT, then they need to persuade the EAT that there was indeed apparent bias. They may be able to, but that is the ground that I think is least likely to succeed.