![CA-2025-000983 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1457](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
The application for reasonable adjustments
The application for reasonable adjustments
On 10th February 2025 the appellant made an application for reasonable adjustments to be made to the procedure before the EAT on account of his disabilities. He asked the EAT to determine his application within 14 days.
The appellant explained that he suffered from multiple chronic physical and mental conditions which affected his ability to participate fully in the proceedings. He listed these as follows:
Ischaemic heart disease, managed by daily atorvastatin, aspirin and lansoprazole.
Chronic, constant body pain, managed by daily paracetamol.
Severe stress, anxiety, and depression, managed by daily sertraline, diazepam and zopiclone.
Severe obstructive sleep apnoea, managed by using a continuous positive airway pressure machine, causing cognitive impairment, chronic fatigue, and difficulty concentrating.
Severe racial trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder, causing significant distress in adversarial environments.
Cataract operations in both eyes.
English as a second language, causing difficulty comprehending legal proceedings and terminology.
Litigant-in-person status, requiring additional time and procedural modifications to prevent the aggravation of his physical and mental health and (to assist his) wellbeing.
On the basis of these disabilities and impairments, the appellant sought an extensive menu of adjustments, which he grouped as follows:
Additional time for preparation and responses: (i) an additional 60 days beyond standard deadlines for document collation, appeal bundle preparation, and written submissions; (ii) an additional 28 days to respond to all correspondence from the EAT and the respondent; (iii) 35 extra days to prepare for cross-examination; (iv) a tribunal-appointed case officer; (v) a minimum of 4 weeks’ extra time to review any newly introduced documents before the hearing; and (vi) a pre-hearing case management discussion to ensure procedural fairness and to clarify his participation needs.
Adjustments to the hearing format: (i) an in-person (i.e. not remote) hearing; (ii) a maximum of 3 hours of hearing time per day; (iii) an adjustment to the start and end times of the hearing, beginning each day at 13:00 and ending at 16:00; (iv) a minimum of a 5 day gap between consecutive hearing dates; and (v) flexible scheduling to allow abrupt breaks or cancellations of hearings.
Adjustments during the hearing: (i) 15-minute breaks every 30-45 minutes; (ii) access to a private, quiet waiting area; and (iii) a balance of (in his words) BAME and white persons, preferably a BAME judge or jury consisting of BAME persons.
Adjustments to cross-examination and advocacy: (i) permission to submit pre-written responses to cross-examination questions; (ii) the ability to read from pre-prepared notes while presenting arguments; (iii) permission to make notes during cross-examination and the hearing generally; (iv) permission for a McKenzie Friend to provide non-legal support, or alternatively a pro-bono legal assistant; (v) less adversarial questioning; (vi) speaking slowly and listening with patience; (vii) using simple English during cross-examination; (viii) a strict 30 minute time limit for any periods of cross-examination; (ix) intervention by the tribunal if questioning became aggressive or distressing; and (x) tribunal staff to be informed of the appellant’s requirements on the day of the hearing.
Presence of the Appellant’s carer and family member for support: permission for the appellant’s wife/carer and adult son to attend all hearings and proceedings in order to provide personal care, administrative assistance, and translation/communication support.
Use of assistive technology: (i) access to speech-to-text software; and (ii) screen readers and text magnification tools.
In support of these requests the appellant relied on a letter from his GP, Dr Rod Addis, dated 1st July 2024, and a letter from a community health nurse, Charlie Taylor, dated 5th August 2024. Both of those had initially been provided for the hearing before Employment Judge Broughton, although in the event the appellant chose not to attend that hearing, apparently because his sister from India was staying with him.