Whilst we bask through a stretch of extreme hot weather in Britain, the following case seems rather fitting. A non-practising barrister has lost her appeal after claiming that sweltering courtroom temperatures made her trial unfair, proving you'll need more than a heatwave to overturn a judgment.
Natasha Sivanandan, a race equality campaigner and non-practising barrister, found herself back in court, appealing a 2023 county court ruling that dismissed her claims against Capstone Foster Care. She had alleged discrimination and breaches under the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998, and negligence but by 2025, her argument had taken an unexpected turn: climate control. Or rather, the lack of it.
According to Sivanandan, the courtroom conditions during the original trial were so stifling with outdoor temperatures exceeding 40°C that the proceedings became "oppressive" and, potentially, in breach of health and safety regulations. By day three, she claimed, she was severely dehydrated, unable to function, and crucially, unable to fairly represent herself.
But in a display of judicial chill, Mr Justice Sweeting of the High Court wasn't convinced. He noted that His Honour Judge Saunders had made efforts to accommodate the heat: robes were removed, fans were rolled out, and an open invitation was extended for anyone to request breaks if the conditions became too much.
Sivanandan, however, didn't raise any issues at the time only later referencing the heat in her supplemental skeleton argument. Justice Sweeting was clear: "Only the applicant could have made an assessment of the effect of the heat... There was no application to adjourn."
Law and order: Climate edition
While the case may raise eyebrows, it does highlight a broader, and increasingly relevant, issue: access to justice in a changing climate.
At its core, access to justice means that everyone should be able to use the legal system fairly, effectively, and without undue barriers whether physical, financial, or environmental. But when courtrooms lack proper ventilation, air conditioning, or basic accommodations during extreme weather, questions arise about whether all parties are truly able to participate equally.
Self-representing litigants like Sivanandan are especially vulnerable. Without legal teams to advocate on their behalf or the confidence to interrupt proceedings for breaks or adjournments, such individuals may find themselves at a disadvantage particularly under physically taxing conditions.
As British summers continue to intensify under the weight of climate change, is the justice system prepared for a new wave of courtroom discomfort? Should there be minimum temperature standards in courtrooms? Should proceedings be delayed or relocated during heatwaves, especially for self-representing parties or those with health conditions?
Verdict: Warm, but not warranted
Ultimately, the High Court ruled that while hot conditions are no laughing matter, they didn't reach the threshold of undermining the fairness of the proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of raising concerns at the time not after the fact.
Still, as climate change brings increasing unpredictability, the justice system will need to keep pace ensuring that access to justice isn't just a matter of law, but of temperature control, too.
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.
