- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- in Asia
- within Employment and HR, Technology, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Aerospace & Defence and Business & Consumer Services industries
At the time of the hearing and not months in advance, said the Court of Appeal in Sharma v University of Nottingham [2025] EWCA Civ 1457.
Mr Sharma was a litigant in person who brought several claims in the Employment Tribunals, which were struck out on the basis that the proceedings had been conducted in an unreasonable manner. In addition, it appeared that the claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claims.
The claimant appealed the strike out of his claims to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and requested extensive adjustments, citing a number of disabilities, including heart disease, chronic pain, mental health conditions and PTSD. The requests included additional preparation time, changes to the hearing format, permission for family members to attend, technological assistance, frequent breaks and adjustments to cross-examination.
The application for adjustments was supported by GP and Community Health Nurse letters, but the EAT refused the application without a hearing on the basis that many of the requests stemmed from a misunderstanding of the EAT process, which would not, in any event, involve cross-examination. The employee appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT. The section 20 Equality Act 2010 duty to make adjustments does not apply to judicial functions (paragraph 3, Schedule 3). Courts and tribunals are, however, under a common law duty to make adjustments to alleviate substantial disadvantage.
The adjustments requested by the appellant showed that the claimant had fundamentally misunderstood how an EAT appeal works. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, ample time had been provided for case preparation in any event. The adjustments were therefore not reasonable nor were they required. The Court of Appeal went on to say that rather than attempting to make provision for adjustments many months in advance (such as hearing breaks, technological assistance), they should be addressed by the court/tribunal applying the common law duty of fairness in the light of the circumstances when the hearing takes place.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
