Key Facts
- •Christian Abanda Bella (Appellant) appealed Employment Judge Crosfill's refusal to allow him to record a three-day preliminary hearing.
- •The Appellant is a disabled litigant-in-person with anxiety, depression, PTSD, paranoia, and psychosis.
- •He argued that recording the hearing was a reasonable adjustment to his disability, enabling effective participation.
- •The Employment Judge refused, citing his observations of the Appellant's abilities and lack of clinical qualifications of the Appellant's psychotherapist.
- •The Judge did not refer to the guidance in Heal v University of Oxford [2020] ICR 1294.
Legal Principles
Employment Tribunals have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the disabilities of claimants.
Rackham v NHS Professionals Ltd UKEAT/0110/15/LA
The duty to make reasonable adjustments arises as a matter of general law, not solely from s. 20 of the Equality Act 2010.
J v K [2019] ICR 815 and Heal v The Chancellor, Master and Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors [2020] ICR 1294
When considering requests to record proceedings due to disability, Tribunals should consider factors such as the extent of the disability, whether other means of alleviation exist, the extent to which recording would help, risks of misuse, other parties' views, potential limitations on use, and potential disruption.
Heal v The Chancellor, Master and Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors [2020] ICR 1294
While not mandatory, the guidance in Heal is important when assessing applications to record proceedings.
This case
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The Employment Judge failed to consider the guidance in Heal and did not adequately address the Appellant's medical evidence and the need for the recording as a reasonable adjustment. The Judge's reasons were deemed insufficient and his decision unlawful.
A declaration was made that the decision of 16 July 2022 not to allow the appellant to record the proceedings was unlawful.
The failure to follow the guidance in *Heal* and consider relevant factors constituted a material error of law. The adjustment was deemed reasonable given the appellant's circumstances and the minimal risk of misuse.