CA-2025-000983 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1457

It is clear from the appellant’s request for adjustments that he understood that the hearing before the EAT would last for several days, with oral evidence from witnesses including cross examination, and that the hearing would be before a judge and jury. As explained by Judge Beard, that was a fundamental misunderstanding of what will happen. The hearing is set down for one day only, before a specialist tribunal which will have had the opportunity to read in advance and will be very experienced in dealing with litigants in person, including those with imperfect English language skills. The appeal will not be concerned with the merits of the appellant’s substantive employment claims, but only with whether the Employment Tribunal was wrong to strike them out. Submissions will be based on existing documents and in practice are likely to last for no more than three hours, the remainder of the day being set aside for preparation and (if appropriate) delivery of judgment. There will be no oral evidence and the submissions will focus on the material which was before the Employment Tribunal.

In these circumstances I consider in turn the appellant’s various requests.

The request for extended additional time for preparation and responses is unnecessary. As the hearing will not take place until September 2026, there is ample time for the preparation of an appeal bundle and any written submissions. Suitable timetabling directions have already been given by the EAT. The appellant has more than enough time to prepare.

There is no need for adjustments to the hearing format whereby both parties’ submissions are made on a single day. This will take place in person and the parties’ submissions should last no longer than about three hours. There is no need for a gap between hearing days as the hearing will be concluded in one day. I can see nothing about the nature of this particular appeal to suggest that a longer hearing is needed. It will be open to the appellant to request a later start than usual if that makes things easier for him, either because of travel arrangements or because his medication enables him to concentrate better later in the day. But that is not something which should be ordered now and in any event I think it unlikely that the EAT would find it appropriate to start so late as to put at risk the prospect of concluding the hearing within the day.

There is no need to specify now how frequent any breaks should be or what their duration should be. It would be premature to do so. This can be left to the good sense of the members of the EAT conducting the hearing. If the need for breaks means that the parties’ submissions have to take somewhat longer than three hours in all, no doubt this can be accommodated. Equally, it should be possible for access to a quiet waiting area during breaks to be provided for the appellant. The hearing will be before specialist judges, but it is not for the appellant to choose his tribunal or the ethnicity of its members.

There will be no cross examination, which appears to be a major concern of the appellant. If he wishes to do so, he can read from pre-prepared notes while presenting his arguments and he can make whatever notes he wishes during the submissions by the respondent. His wife and son can be present to support him, as they were at the hearing before us. They can provide whatever assistance the appellant may need in expressing himself in English, though we observe that he had no difficulty in expressing himself clearly before us. They can also take notes. If he wishes to have someone else present to support him, including a McKenzie friend, he may do so. No order is needed for any of this to happen. Having heard the appellant make submissions to us, we think it unlikely that an interpreter will be needed, and in any event language difficulties should not be exaggerated. The appellant held a responsible job working as a manager for the respondent, in which he must have expressed himself in fluent English, as he did before us.

At present I see no need for any access to speech to text software and no explanation was given to the EAT of why this was said to be necessary. Nor was there any explanation why screen readers or text magnification tools are required. The EAT’s refusal to make this order therefore cannot be faulted.

It seems to me that the appellant will not need this technology when making his own submissions, and he (or his son) are free to make any notes they wish during the respondent’s submissions. However, if there is a genuine need for the use of such technology, the appellant can request permission to use it when the time comes. I record that he has indicated before us (but did not make this clear in his application to the EAT) that he would be willing to offer an undertaking to use the technology only for the purpose of live transcription, and to delete the recording in the presence of an officer of the EAT once the hearing is concluded; and that he was not asking for this technology to be provided at public expense. It should therefore be possible, if necessary, to overcome any difficulty about recording of the proceedings (see section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981).