Mr C Mallon v Surface Transforms plc: 2411246/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2411246/2023
Between
Mr C MallonClaimantSurface Transforms plcRespondent
Before
Employment Judge BuzzardIn person for claimantMr P Singh (instructed by Solicitor) for respondentDate 25 October 2024
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s claims of discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability related harassment both fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
The Law
[1]Claims and Issues 1.1. This is an unusual Employment Tribunal claim. The parties were agreed that all communication between them (prior to these proceedings) was written and sent via email. This was without any exception. Accordingly, there is no factual dispute about any of the relevant interactions between the parties. 1.2. The claimant in this case makes two claims: 1.2.1. unlawful disability related harassment; and 1.2.2. discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments. 1.3. Harassment Claims 1.3.1. At the start of this hearing the three connected acts of harassment the claims related to were confirmed by the claimant. 1.3.2. The claimant complains about an email of 27 September 2023 sent to him by Ms Hooper. In that email he was told, in summary, that his repeated asking of the same questions would be considered a nuisance, and if it continued, his application would be discontinued and he would be sent a ‘cease and desist’ letter. 1.3.3. This was repeated to the claimant on two further occasions in emails sent to him shortly thereafter when the claimant continued to ask the same questions. 1.4. Discrimination By Failure To Make Reasonable Adjustments Claims 1.4.1. The claimant had identified two alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments. These related to two different provision, criterion or practices ("PCPs"). 1.4.2. The claimant had identified two PCPs as follows: 1.4.3. PCP 1 1.4.3.1. This related to an alleged refusal to allow the claimant to use a speakerphone if there was a phone conversation at any point. The claimant was invited to identify in the documents where he intended to say this PCP was communicated to him, inferred to him or implied by the respondent. This is in the context where all relevant interactions between the parties were by email. The claimant was given several hours whilst the Employment Tribunal was reading documentary evidence before the hearing started to do this. Despite this time, the claimant was not able to identify anything in any email that could be suggested in any way to give that impression. 1.4.3.2. The claimant then suggested that the fact he was told that he would not be provided with a recording of any telephone call, and that he should not seek to record it himself, implied he was not allowed to use a speakerphone if a conversation occurred. 1.4.3.3. It is not clear to the Employment Tribunal how this logically follows in any way. Regardless, in the absence of any evidence that the claimant could point to that could establish that this PCP existed or was applied to him, the claimant withdrew this claim and it was dismissed. 1.4.4. PCP 2 1.4.4.1. The claimant’s second PCP related to the issue of recording. The PCP had been identified at a case management discussion and confirmed in the written orders that followed that hearing as being: ‘that the oral application could not be recorded and the candidate given an opportunity afterwards to supply further information.[2]Relevant Law - Reasonable Adjustments claim 2.1. The relevant provision relating to the duty to make reasonable adjustments is to be found in section 20 of the Act which sets out that where: “a provision, criterion or practice applied by or on behalf of an employee places the disabled person concerned at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled it is the duty of the employer to take such steps as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to prevent the provision, criteria or practice, or feature, having that effect.” 2.2. In determining whether it is reasonable for a person to have to take a particular step in order to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments, regard shall be had, in particular: “to the extent in which taking the step would prevent the effect in relation to which the duty is imposed.” 2.3. This means that a reasonable adjustment must prevent, or at least reduce, the disadvantage that the PCP causes. It is an issue of fact for the Employment Tribunal to determine, by consideration of evidence, whether any adjustment made achieved such a removal of the substantial disadvantage identified, and if not whether a different reasonable adjustment could have done so.[3]Relevant Law – Harassment 3.1. Harassment is defined by s26 of the Equality Act as: “(1) A person(a) (A) harasses another(b) (B) if— (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of— (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. … (4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account— (a) the perception of B; (b) the other circumstances of the case;(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.” 3.2. Accordingly, the claimant has to identify alleged acts or omissions that were unwanted conduct. In this case that was comments made in an email to the claimant of 27 September 2023, and repeated in two more emails shortly thereafter. 3.3. For those comments to amount to disability related harassment, the comments have to have related to the claimant’s disability. This is a question of fact for the Employment Tribunal to determine. 3.4. Finally, unwanted conduct related to disability has to be of a nature that meets the definition of harassment. It is a matter for the Tribunal to determine if the conduct actually violated the claimant’s dignity or created the required environment, or in the alternative whether such was the purpose of the conduct. In doing this, the subjective perception of the claimant is relevant, however it must also be reasonable for the conduct to have had the effect the claimant alleges. Therefore, there is an objective element to this test. 3.5. When undertaking this consideration, the Employment Tribunal was mindful of the guidance given by the senior courts about the definition of harassment. In particular, the following comments of Elias LJ in Grant v HM Land registry [2011] EWCA Civ 769, referring to the words “violating dignity”, “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating” and “offensive” contained in the relevant provisions of the Equality Act 2010, and describing these words as significant he stated: “Tribunals must not cheapen the significance of these words. They are an important control to prevent trivial acts causing minor upsets being caught by the concept of harassment. The claimant was no doubt upset that he could not release the information in his own way, but that is far from attracting the epithets required to constitute harassment.” 3.6. Mr Justice Langstaff in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Mrs A Hughes and others [2014] UKEAT/0179/13 commented: “the word ‘violating’ is a strong word. Offending against dignity, hurting, is insufficient. ‘Violating’ is a word the strength of which is sometimes overlooked. The same might be said of the words ‘intimidating’ etc. All look for effects which are serious and marked, and not those which are, though real, truly of a lesser consequence.”[4]Relevant Law - The Burden of Proof 4.1. Considering the claimant’s claim for discrimination the burden of proof is determined by s136 of the Equality Act. The relevant parts of this section state: (2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.” 4.2. This in effect reverses the traditional burden of proof in legal claims, so that the claimant does not have to prove discrimination has occurred which can be very difficult. Section 136(1) expressly provides that this reversal of the burden applies to ‘any proceedings relating to a contravention of this [Equality] Act’. Accordingly, it applies to all the claimant’s claims. 4.3. This is commonly referred to as the reversed burden of proof, and has 2 stages. 4.3.1. Firstly, has the claimant proved facts from which the Tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the respondent committed an unlawful act of discrimination? This is more than simply showing the respondent could have committed an act of discrimination. 4.3.2. If the claimant passes the first stage then the respondent has to show that they have not discriminated against the claimant. This is often by explanation of the reason for the conduct alleged to be discriminatory, and that the reason is not connected to the relevant protected characteristic. If the respondent fails to establish this then the Tribunal must find in favour of the claimant. With reference to the respondent’s explanation, the Tribunal can take into account evidence of an unsatisfactory explanation by the respondent, to support the claimant’s case. 4.4. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to approach these two elements of the burden of proof as distinct stages. The court of Appeal in Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] EWCA Civ 33 gave useful guidance that despite the two stages of the test all evidence should be heard at once before a two-stage analysis of that evidence is applied.[5]Evidence 5.1. As noted, this case was unusual. All contact between the claimant and the respondent was in written form. The Employment Tribunal were provided with a bundle that contained all this written communication, in the form of emails. The Employment Tribunal took the time to read this in full before hearing any further evidence. 5.2. Oral evidence was given by the claimant on his own behalf. For the respondent oral evidence was given by a Miss R Hooper, head of HR at the respondent. 5.3. In addition to the bundle of documents, the parties sent in a number of additional and supplementary documents. These were considered by the Employment Tribunal to the extent that the parties directed the Employment Tribunal to them either during evidence or in submissions. 5.4. The respondent prepared written submissions, and the claimant sent an emailed response to those submissions. These were all before the Employment Tribunal and read prior to the parties additional oral submissions.[6]The Claimant’s Evidence 6.1. The Employment Tribunal found the claimant’s evidence to be concerning in its inconsistency, evasion, significant internal contradictions at times, and at key points so lacking in credibility that the Employment Tribunal struggled to conclude it was anything other than dishonest. Some examples of the basis for this concern are explained below. 6.2. The claimant’s IT ability: 6.2.1. In relation to the discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments claim that was not withdrawn, the respondent states that reasonable adjustments were made. Specifically, the claimant was sent the questions he would need to answer and offered the facility to record his answers, rerecording them until he was content, and then upload or submit that recording. 6.2.2. The claimant initially stated, very emphatically, that he did not have the IT skills to do this and accordingly it was not a reasonable adjustment. 6.2.3. The claimant was cross examined regarding his IT skills, and the following relevant points were conceded by the claimant during that cross examination: 6.2.3.1. he has a you-tube channel and has uploaded videos to that; 6.2.3.2. the claimant is familiar with and had used zoom software; 6.2.3.3. the claimant utilises AI to assist him with preparing documents and summarising multiple documents etc; 6.2.3.4. the claimant has MS Word software and could have used the inbuilt dictate to text function “if he had thought of that”; 6.2.3.5. The claimant runs an online retail company that has a turnover of £70,000 per year and that has a website, although the claimant stated he received assistance with creating the website; 6.2.3.6. the claimant estimated he applies for 2000 jobs per year, all done entirely online in the first instance; 6.2.3.7. the claimant has submitted an unspecified ‘a lot’ of Employment Tribunal claims, all online; and 6.2.3.8. the claimant confirmed to the tribunal that if he did not know how to perform an IT task, he had in the past, taught himself how to, by watching YouTube video guides. 6.2.4. In addition to these points, the Employment Tribunal notes the claimant’s CV contained within the bundle of documents. This records he has the following qualifications: 6.2.4.1. a PhD in Chemical Engineering; 6.2.4.2. a Masters degree in analytical science; and 6.2.4.3. a BSc in Chemistry. These are all advanced academic qualifications in STEM subjects. Any suggestion that such subjects could be studied to such a level without considerable use of IT, even when the claimant studied them, is wholly lacking in any credibility. 6.2.5. There was no evidence before the Employment Tribunal that the claimant ever made any attempt to engage with the process of uploading recordings of his answers to questions. The claimant did not suggest this, having stated that he lacked the IT skills needed to do this. 6.2.6. The Employment Tribunal do not find it even remotely credible that the claimant was being honest when he stated in evidence that he lacked the IT skills to be able to record his answers to questions and then upload those answers. The claimant’s insistence at the time that he ‘struggled with technology’ is found to have been a deliberately misleading statement. The Employment Tribunal find that the claimant refused to engage with this option because he did not want the reasonable adjustment that this represented, because it would undermine the potential to make this claim. That is found to be the sole reason why the claimant stated he could not utilise the offered adjustment. 6.3. The reason for repeatedly asking the respondent the same questions 6.3.1. This is closely related to the claimant’s harassment claim. 6.3.2. The claimant was asked in cross examination why he had asked the respondent the same question over and over again, and then continued to do so even after being asked to stop and if it continued it would be considered a nuisance. The claimant gave a clear and cogent answer, kept repeatedly asking the same questions because he “wanted the respondent to understand his difficulties”. There was no equivocation about this answer. He wanted to make a point to the respondent. 6.3.3. When it was later put to the claimant that wanting to make a point to the respondent was not something that arose from his disability, the claimant changed his evidence. He then stated that his repeated asking of questions was not intentional. It was not actually because he wanted to make a point. It was because he could not help himself. 6.3.4. These are clearly different answers. One is that he made a choice to do it to get his point across. The second is that his neurodiversity was the reason he did it. 6.3.5. The Employment Tribunal asked the claimant to confirm which reason for this approach the claimant wanted to record as his evidence. The claimant, after some consideration, confirmed that it was the latter. He stated that he did not ‘want’ to ask the questions but could not control himself because of his neurodiversity. 6.3.6. The Employment Tribunal find the claimant in this regard to have been inconsistent in a concerning way. It was a potentially significant point going to whether any comments about his repeated demands were related to his disability, rather than his choice to make a point. It was only after the cross examination made this clear that the claimant shifted his evidence, to an account that did not carry the same risk of fatally undermining his harassment claim. 6.4. Evasive responses 6.4.1. A recurrent theme in the claimant’s evidence was that his answers to questions put to him would become evasive. 6.4.2. The Employment Tribunal have considered this point carefully. It is noted that this evasiveness only occurred when the answer to the question was something that undermined the claimant’s claims. At these points he would make statements related to other issues, make generic assertions about people without his disability and avoid responding to the question. 6.4.3. The Employment Tribunal had to, on multiple occasions, ask the claimant to answer the question put, despite the cross examination of the claimant being relatively short, limited to just over an hour in total. 6.4.4. Taking into account the fact that the claimant is neurodiverse and thus may be unintentionally evasive under cross examination, the Employment Tribunal find the claimant’s evidence to have been selectively evasive. It is the fact that evasive answers were only provided at the points where the answer was damaging to his claims that the Employment Tribunal found concerning. This selectiveness suggests that the evasion was deliberate and strategic. 6.5. The conclusion of the Employment Tribunal is that the evidence before it shows that the claimant’s evidence not to be reliable, or honest, at repeated points. Given that, coupled with the existence of a full record of all communication between the parties in the documents, the Employment Tribunal finds that the content of the emails is the reliable source of relevant evidence in this case, not the limited unreliable oral evidence presented by the claimant.[7]Evidence about whether the claimant had the essential experience required for the job he applied for 7.1. A key dispute in this case related to whether the claimant had the required essential experience for the job he applied for. If he did not, then it is difficult to see what disadvantage could have flowed from not being given a chance to explain his experience. His application would have been rejected in any event. 7.2. The respondent has, from almost the very start of the claimant’s application process and throughout these proceedings, clearly maintained that the claimant did not have this experience. 7.3. The claimant has supplied a copy of his ‘generic’ CV as part of the bundle for this hearing. On its face that cannot be read as even suggesting that the claimant has the required experience. 7.4. The claimant has included no evidence in the documents for this hearing that shows he has the required essential experience. 7.5. The Employment Tribunal were directed to a finding of fact made in another claim (1403362/2020) the claimant has made against a different respondent in similar circumstances: “other than a substantial period of time working in tax including submitting tax claims relating to innovation and research and development, his roles have in the main been short-term and the claimant exaggerates the experience he obtained during these roles. For example: he currently sells car treatment sachets and scratch cloths primarily via ebay as confirmed by Ms Newport but sought to categorise this as experience in nanotechnology and link this to the wider sectors where this technology may be of use.” 7.6. In this hearing it was highlighted to the claimant by the Employment Tribunal that he had produced no evidence at all that he had the required minimum experience for the role, neither to the respondent, nor as part of these proceedings. The emails sent to the claimant show that he has been repeatedly asked to explain his relevant experience and never gave any more information than repeating things included in his generic CV and stating, “I have it”. 7.7. The Employment Tribunal observed to the parties that had such evidence been produced to the respondent during the application process, he would have been permitted to rely on that evidence in these proceedings, because the respondent had advance knowledge of it. 7.8. The claimant then sought to introduce oral evidence listing a series of technical sounding descriptions of various roles. The claimant was informed that this evidence would not be permitted to be introduced at that point. It is not in his statement, and if permitted the Employment Tribunal would have needed to adjourn the hearing to allow the respondent’s representative to consider the evidence, take instructions and present their own evidence on the point. Such a further delay to proceedings would not have been proportionate. 7.9. The claimant by his own admission has made over 100 Employment Tribunal claims. The claimant must be aware of the need to include relevant evidence in the bundle of documents and in his statement. 7.10. The claimant did not raise any objection when he was informed that he would not be permitted to introduce this previously undisclosed evidence part way through the final hearing.[8]Background Facts 8.1. The claimant in this case made an application for a job with the respondent. The claimant accepts that the application was supported by his generic CV, the same CV he uses for the thousands of applications for work he makes each year, regardless of the specialism of the role he is applying for, or the company he is applying to. 8.2. The claimant’s CV states that he is disabled, in large bold font on the first page. It goes on to state that the CV is generic, that he cannot tailor his CV to the specific job he is applying for, and that he requires a chance to explain how he meets any essential or desirable criteria for the job orally. In the claimant’s words, he is better at expressing himself in verbal format. 8.3. The respondent in this case rejected the claimant’s application. No reason was initially given for this, but the claimant was informed that due to the number of applications received individual feedback was not possible. 8.4. The claimant then contacted the respondent asking if they had read his CV, and the statements that he needed to be allowed to make an oral application. 8.5. There followed an exchange of emails which the Employment Tribunal has read in full. The entire exchange is not set out here, but the following points are highlighted: 8.5.1. The claimant was told his CV did not show the required experience, the claimant was given repeated chances to explain how he does have the required experience and never did so. The closest the claimant came to this was an email sent which merely stated “Yes I have this”, and a second occasion when he referred back to the fact he was awarded a Chemical Engineering PhD in 2006 8.5.2. The claimant stated he needed to explain things orally. The respondent sent the claimant the questions that needed to be answered and informed the claimant that he could record oral answers to these questions and upload them to the respondent’s recruitment tool for the respondent to listen to. The claimant was told this could be an audio only recording if he preferred. The claimant refused to do this and demanded a telephone discussion, and that the respondent record the telephone discussion and send him the recording. The claimant was informed that no recording of telephone discussions would be made or permitted. 8.5.3. The claimant repeatedly asked the respondent to provide information about other candidates and restated his demand for a telephone discussion recorded by the respondent. The respondent set out its position in relation to both points clearly and repeatedly. The claimant continued to ask the same questions, whereupon the respondent stated to the claimant in an email: “I would like to take this opportunity to explicitly request that you CEASE requesting details of any candidate progression or for any part of the application to be recorded. Should you continue to do this, this will be treated as a nuisance request and your application will be terminated at that point and will be followed up by a cease and desist letter.” 8.6. The claimant continued to ask the same questions. The above was repeated to the claimant twice more in response to repeated requests, before the claimant’s application was terminated. The claimant was not sent any ‘cease and desist’ letter.[9]Discrimination By Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments Claim Findings 9.1. What the claimant says needed to be adjusted? 9.1.1. The claimant states that he needed an adjustment to the normal process of a written application because his disabilities make it difficult for him to express himself in written form and to remember all the points he would want to make. The adjustment the claimant sought was to allow an oral application to be pursued. This is as stated on his generic CV. 9.2. What was the Substantial Disadvantage? 9.2.1. To establish this claim the claimant would need to establish that the PCP was applied to him and caused him a substantial disadvantage. In this case, in effect, the claimant says did not get a fair chance to be considered for the job he applied for, which if correct could be a substantial disadvantage. 9.2.2. That being noted, the respondent’s position is that the claimant has never provided any evidence that he meets the essential minimum criteria to be eligible for the job. The respondent states that the claimant simply does not have the required experience. On this basis the respondent argues that there was no disadvantage to the claimant, the rejection of his application was inevitable. 9.2.3. The claimant has not properly produced evidence that he has the required essential experience. He included nothing in his written statement and nothing in the extensive bundle of evidence. At no point did he provide this information to the respondent before these proceedings such that the Employment Tribunal could conclude the respondent was already aware of the experience he relied on. 9.2.4. The claimant did, when this was pointed out to him by the Employment Tribunal, seek to describe using technical terms and language how the jobs set out in his CV did in fact include that experience. As explained above, the claimant was not permitted to rely on such evidence not disclosed in advance, as in all cases it should have been. It was complex and technical evidence, much of which appeared to be of a nature that could be checked and verified by the respondent if they had been given any advance warning the evidence might be given or relied on. 9.2.5. It is further noted that the claimant in his statement sought to expand the claims he makes to include, amongst other things, a claim of indirect discrimination. Whist this was not permitted at this stage of proceedings, it is relevant to consider what the claimant’s statement included. The potential claim of indirect discrimination was, in part, predicated in the claimant’s statement on an assertion that the respondent’s requirement to have 5 years’ experience indirectly discriminated against the claimant. This would only be possible if that requirement was something the claimant did not meet, such that he was put at a particular disadvantage by the requirement. This could never be consistent with his unsubstantiated assertions at this hearing that he fully met this requirement. 9.2.6. Accordingly, the Employment Tribunal find that there is no properly disclosed evidence that tends to show that the claimant had any chance whatsoever of securing the position he applied for, regardless of the application process followed. For this reason, it is found that the claimant has not established any substantial disadvantage to him of not being allowed his preferred application process. 9.3. Was an Adjustment made anyway? 9.3.1. The respondent agreed to make an adjustment for the claimant. The adjustment was to send the claimant the questions he would be asked, and then allow the claimant to prepare recordings of his answers to those questions and upload the recordings. This would mean the claimant was permitted to submit this information in oral format, and that he would be able to re-record what he uploaded, as many times as he liked, until he was content with the recording and the points covered, before he uploaded it. 9.3.2. The claimant sought to suggest that he was not technically capable of this, and as such this adjustment did not remove any disadvantage. The Employment Tribunal find the claimant’s evidence regarding this to have been dishonest and completely lacking in credibility. The reasons for this conclusion were set out above in the discussion of the claimant’s credibility. 9.3.3. Accordingly, the adjustment that the respondent put in place is found to have been reasonable in that it would have eliminated the disadvantage the claimant identifies. 9.3.4. It was clear from the email exchange the claimant had with the respondent that the claimant is under the impression that, when there is a duty to make reasonable adjustments, an employer is obliged to make whatever adjustments the claimant demands. For example, the claimant stated in emails to the respondent: “So when can I get the format that suits me best?” and “do you believe that me asking to use a phone is unreasonable?” 9.3.5. Whether an adjustment that the claimant prefers is, or is not, reasonable is not the point. The duty is no more than to make an adjustment that eliminates the claimed substantial disadvantage. The respondent put in place such an adjustment in this case. That adjustment was that the claimant was sent questions and could upload audio recordings of his answers to those questions to address his difficulty with providing written answers. To ensure any difficulty with memory was adjusted for, the claimant was able to record and re-record his answer until he was content that he had accurately included in the recording all the information he wished to include. He was also informed he would be permitted to provide further supplementary information after uploading the recordings if needed. This was not the adjustment the claimant states he wanted, and he refused to engage with it. 9.3.6. The claimant came to these proceedings and dishonestly sought to suggest he lacked the IT skills to be able to engage with the offered adjustment. It is clear to the Employment Tribunal that he had the technical skills to record and upload his answers to questions, and as such the claimed disadvantages identified would clearly have been mitigated had the claimant engaged with that process. 9.3.7. Any duty to make adjustments was therefore fully met. Adjustments were offered that, if they had not been unreasonably rejected by the claimant, would have addressed his claimed difficulties with a written application process.[10]Harassment Claim Findings 10.1. The claimant claims, in summary, that being told that if he did not continue to keep asking the same questions repeatedly, despite the respondent having given a clear final answer, his application would be considered a nuisance application and terminated, amounted to harassment. 10.2. Did it occur? 10.2.1. There is no dispute this was stated to the claimant. It was in three emails the Employment Tribunal has seen. 10.3. Was it unwanted conduct? 10.3.1. The respondent submitted that this statement was not unwanted conduct. 10.3.2. The Employment Tribunal do not agree. There is no evidence before the Employment Tribunal that suggests that this statement was not unwanted by the claimant. 10.4. Was it related to disability? 10.4.1. The Claimant’s evidence about the reasons why he kept asking the same questions repeatedly, despite having been told to stop, were inconsistent and are found to be unreliable. 10.4.2. His first response, until it became apparent that the reason had to be related to his disability, was that he was positively seeking to make a point, to “make the respondent understand his difficulties”. 10.4.3. When the difficulty this might cause his harassment claim was pointed out, he changed his evidence to state that he could not control this as a result of his disability. 10.4.4. The Employment Tribunal find his later revised evidence to be unlikely to be correct. The initial, clear and definite answer given is found by the Employment Tribunal to be more likely to be the truth and correctly reflect the reason why the claimant persisted with asking the same questions over and over again. 10.4.5. Accordingly, the Employment Tribunal do not find that the instruction to stop asking the same questions was related to the claimant’s disability. It is found, as the claimant initially stated, to have been no more than the claimant’s desire to forcefully make a point. 10.5. Was the purpose or effect to harass the claimant? 10.5.1. Harassment can occur if conduct has the purpose or effect of creating any of the proscribed effects in s26 Equality Act 2010. 10.5.2. The claimant at no point in his evidence sought to describe the effects of this alleged harassment. It is noteworthy that the claimant did not mention his claim of harassment at all in his statement. 10.5.3. Without any evidence that the comments complained about had any particular effect, the Employment Tribunal cannot find that they did have such effect. 10.5.4. On a similar basis, the claimant offered no evidence, or submission, to the effect that he invited the Employment Tribunal to find that the comments had the purpose of harassing him. The comments referred to appear to the Employment Tribunal to themselves clearly identify their purpose, to get the claimant to stop asking the same question repeatedly in a way that could be described as harassment of the respondent. 10.5.5. In the absence of any evidence that could support such a conclusion, the Employment Tribunal find it did not have such a purpose. 10.6. Was what was done capable of being harassment anyway? 10.6.1. The Employment Tribunal have considered carefully the words used in this case. Unusually, all words used were at all times written, so there is no consideration required of the manner in which the words were spoken or the tone of voice used when the words were spoken. 10.6.2. Having undertaken this consideration, the Employment Tribunal concludes that there does not appear to be any basis upon which, even if the claimant had given evidence of effects on him that fell within the definition of harassment, the Employment Tribunal could have found such effects were reasonable. 10.6.3. The respondent has politely, firmly and clearly asked the claimant to stop emailing the same question to them repeatedly. Nothing about the way that was done appears to this Employment Tribunal to be capable of, to use the words of Elias LJ, “attracting the epithets required to constitute harassment”. 10.6.4. Accordingly, regardless of the earlier findings that mean the claimant’s claim of harassment cannot succeed, the claimant’s claim of harassment would have failed to meet this legal test and would have been dismissed in any event.[1]An application for reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that (subject to appeal on a point of law) a decision of an Employment Tribunal is final. The test is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment (rule 70).[2]Rule 72(1) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure empowers the refusal of an application for reconsideration based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[3]The importance of finality was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor [2016] EWCA Civ 714 in July 2016 where Elias LJ said that: “the discretion to act in the interests of justice is not open-ended; it should be exercised in a principled way, and the earlier case law cannot be ignored. In particular, the courts have emphasised the importance of finality (Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 395) which militates against the discretion being exercised too readily”.[4]In common with all powers under the 2013 Rules, preliminary consideration under rule 72(1) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective which appears in rule 2, namely, to deal with cases fairly and justly. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication. Page 1 of 14 Discussion of the Grounds in this application[5]The claimant’s reconsideration application identifies four numbered grounds upon which reconsideration is sought. Some of these are broken into discrete subgrounds. In addition, there are then further grounds set out by the claimant beyond the numbered grounds.[6]In support of these grounds the claimant has relied on a significant number of authorities, with full citations. The claimant has not provided any detailed explanation of the relevance of many of these authorities. Whilst seeking to access these authorities to assess whether and how they are relevant to the claimant’s application, it has proved impossible to locate some of them. In the reasons below such authorities are identified as ‘Not Found’.[7]For each ‘Not Found’ authority a search was done by reference to the citation given and using just the parties’ names, to ensure the difficulty was not just an error in the citation given.[8]Ground 1: Incorrect Application of the Burden of Proof 8.1. The claimant’s application for reconsideration is misleading in that it selectively refers to part of the reasons given without context. The reasons explicitly state that “all evidence should be heard at once before a two-stage analysis of that evidence is applied” (Paragraph 4.4). 8.2. The earlier statement that “It is not necessary for the Tribunal to approach these two elements of the burden of proof as distinct stages” refers to the fact that the evidence does not need to be heard in two stages. This is clear when the relevant parts of the judgment are read as a whole. 8.3. Accordingly, reconsideration on this ground is refused. It would not be in the[9]Ground 2: Errors in Assessment of Reasonable Adjustments This ground is broken into sub-grounds by the claimant, which are discussed in turn below. Ground 2(a): Failure to Consider Claimant’s Specific Needs 9.1. The claimant has referred in this section of his application for reconsideration to two case authorities: ▪ Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218; and ▪ HM Land Registry v Benson [2018] UKEAT/0141/17 (Not Found). Page 2 of 14 9.2. The claimant states that Environment Agency v Rowan is authority for the proposition that “employers must consider an employee’s preferred adjustments.” 9.3. Having read the judgment, it is not clear which part of the reasoning of the EAT is relied on to support this assertion. This does not appear to be a reasonable conclusion that can be reached from the decision of the EAT. Insofar as it relates to disability discrimination, the decision of the EAT appears to have been based on a finding that the Employment Tribunal had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the conclusions reached. 9.4. HM Land Registry v Benson [2018] UKEAT/0141/17 could not be found. The citation given by the claimant (UKEAT/0141/17) is for a case with different parties regarding costs (A Haydar v Pennine Acute NHS Trust [[2018] UKEAT/0141/17). There is an authority with the parties HM Land Registry v Benson, but that has the citation UKEAT/0197/11, and the authority relates to a claim of age and sex discrimination. It is not clear, on this basis, how that claim could ever provide relevant authority regarding the duty to make reasonable adjustments, which is exclusively only applicable to disability discrimination. 9.5. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground that there was a failure to consider claimant’s specific needs is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to reconsider the claim on this ground because there is no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked on this ground. Ground 2(b): Incorrect Focus on Success Rather Than Disadvantage 9.6. The claimant contends that the Employment Tribunal “erroneously focused on whether the Claimant would have been successful in the application process rather than whether the PCP created a substantial disadvantage.” 9.7. The requirement for there to be a substantial disadvantage is a fundamental part of the relevant legal tests. Accordingly, it was fully considered and discussed. 9.8. The Employment Tribunal then went on to discuss the other relevant parts of the legal tests, finding that an adjustment was offered which the claimant refused to engage with on the basis of a dishonest pretext. The Employment Tribunal found that his this adjustment would have enabled the claimant to fully explain his application before it was, inevitably, rejected. 9.9. The claimant has referred, in support of this ground for his application for ▪ Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Foster [2011] IRLR 498; and ▪ Tarbuck v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd [2006] IRLR 664. 9.10. The claimant has cited Tarbuck v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd on the basis that this authority emphasizes focus should be on the disadvantage Page 3 of 14 itself. The claimant has given no indication of which part of the reported case contains this emphasis. 9.11. The authority, insofar as it relates to a claim of discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments, appears to relate to whether there is a duty to consult with an employee, such that a failure to consult is itself discrimination. This does not appear to be relevant to this claim. 9.12. The claimant states that Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Foster is authority for the proposition that “success” is not the primary consideration when looking at whether the claimant has encountered a substantial disadvantage. 9.13. The claimant again gives no indication of what part of the discussion in that case is argued to support that contention. It is correct that this case states that all that is needed for a disadvantage is “a prospect” of success. The strength of that prospect is not relevant. 9.14. The reasons in this claimant’s case make it clear that the Employment Tribunal found that the claimant did not have “any chance whatsoever of securing the position he applied for, regardless of the application process followed”. This clearly explains the finding that the claimant had no prospect at all. There was no assessment of the strength of his prospects of success. 9.15. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground that there was an incorrect focus on success rather than disadvantage is refused. It would not be in the Ground 2(c): Failure to Consider Alternative Adjustments 9.16. The claimant seeks a reconsideration on the ground that the Employment Tribunal failed to consider alternative adjustments. 9.17. The decision in the claimant’s claim was based on a finding that an adjustment was offered which the claimant refused to engage with on the basis of a dishonest pretext. The Employment Tribunal found that this adjustment would have enabled the claimant to fully explain his application before it was, inevitably, rejected. 9.18. The offered adjustment was found to fully meet the respondent’s duty to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant. As such, the respondent had no further obligation to consider whether other adjustments could have been considered that the claimant would not refuse to engage with. 9.19. The claimant has referred, in support of this ground for his application for ▪ Smith v Churchills Stairlifts plc [2006] IRLR 41; and Page 4 of 14 ▪ Archibald v Fife Council [2004] IRLR 651. 9.20. The claimant states that the authority of Smith v Churchills Stairlifts “emphasizes the continuing nature of the duty to consider adjustments”. The claimant does not explain why this would be relevant to the decision in his claim. There was no finding that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not continuing, the finding was that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was complied with. 9.21. The claimant states that Archibald v Fife Council establishes the breadth of the duty to make adjustments. Again, that does not appear to be a point that is relevant in the claimant’s case. The finding of the Employment Tribunal was that a reasonable adjustment was offered, and the only reason the claimant did not utilise that adjustment to remove the disadvantage was his desire to be able to make this claim. The fact that there may have been different adjustments, that the claimant would not have refused to engage with, that could equally have addressed the stated disadvantage is not relevant. 9.22. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground that there was a failure to consider alternative adjustments is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to reconsider the claim on this ground because there is no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked on this ground.[10]Ground 3: Errors in Assessment of Harassment The claimant’s application for reconsideration on this ground is divided into two sub grounds: Ground 3(a): The judgment required "evidence that the comments complained about had any particular effect" (paragraph 10.5.3) 10.1. This ground appears to be based on an incomplete reading of the Employment Tribunal decision. 10.2. Paragraph 10.5.3 of the reasons provided to the claimant explains that to make a finding that conduct has had the effect of harassing the claimant would require evidence of that effect. That is clearly correct. 10.3. The reasons go on to explain that the Employment Tribunal considered both whether the treatment the claimant refers to had the purpose of harassing him, and also, or in the alternative, whether it had the effect of harassing him. The Employment Tribunal’s reasoning in relation to these points is set out at paragraphs 10.5.1 to 10.5.5. 10.4. The conclusion reached was: Page 5 of 14 10.4.1. that the claimant had presented no evidence regarding any effects of the alleged harassment, so no factual finding of an effect could be found; and 10.4.2. that the claimant had presented no evidence that could support a finding that the alleged harassing acts had the required purpose, so no finding that there was such a purpose was made. 10.5. In the absence of a finding of either the relevant purpose or the relevant effect, no claim of harassment can succeed. For this reason, the claimant’s harassment claim failed. 10.6. The claimant has referred, in support of this ground for his application for ▪ Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336; and ▪ Langstaff v Needham Market Middle School [2011] UKEAT/0542/10 (Not Found). 10.7. The claimant has given no indication of which parts of Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal are relied on. 10.8. The authority of Langstaff v Needham Market Middle School has not been found. 10.9. Regardless, the legal principle that the claimant suggests that these authorities support is a correct principle, and it is entirely consistent with the approach taken by the Employment Tribunal in this case. 10.10. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground that the judgment required "evidence that the comments complained about had any particular effect" is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to reconsider the claim on this ground because there is no reasonable prospect of the original Ground 3(b): The Tribunal applied an incorrectly high threshold by requiring language to be "serious and marked." 10.11. “Serious and marked” is the language taken from the authorities as set out in paragraphs 3.4 to 3.6 of the judgment reasons. As such, it does not appear that there is any error of law that would justify a reconsideration because these words were referred to. 10.12. The claimant has referred, in support of this ground for his application for ▪ Pemberton v Stockton on Tees Borough Council [2016] IRLR 266 (Not Found); and ▪ Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd v Heads [1995] IRLR 4. Page 6 of 14 10.13. Pemberton v Stockton on Tees Borough Council, which appears to be a relatively recent case, could not be found. 10.14. The claimant states that Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd v Heads in an authority that emphasises “a broader approach to harassment”. The claimant gives no indication of which part of this authority provides this emphasis. Having read this authority, such an emphasis was not obviously apparent. The authority provides guidance that a single remark is capable of amounting to harassment and reaffirmed the long standing principle that whether a remark is sufficient to amount to harassment is a matter of fact and degree. That is entirely consistent with the approach taken in this case as explained in the judgment reasons. 10.15. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground that the Tribunal applied an incorrectly high threshold by requiring language to be "serious and marked" is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to reconsider the claim on this ground because there is no reasonable prospect of the original[11]Ground 4: Procedural Irregularities and Treatment of Evidence The claimant’s application for reconsideration on this ground is divided into two sub grounds: Ground 4(a): the judgment shows “insufficient consideration of the Claimant's disability in the hearing process itself.” 11.1. The claimant has referred, in support of this ground for his application for ▪ Vicary v British Telecommunications plc [1999] IRLR 680 (Not Found); and ▪ First Great Western Ltd v Tame [2009] IRLR 949. 11.2. The authority of First Great Western Ltd v Tame could not be found. 11.3. The claimant states that Vicary v British Telecommunications plc is authority that there has to be consideration of disability in Employment Tribunal procedures. The claimant gives no indication of where in that authority this is discussed. There does not, however, appear to be any discussion in this authority about adjustments being made during an Employment Tribunal hearing. The authority appears to focus on what constitutes a normal day to day activity, and whether in the assessment of impacts on normal day to day activity the Employment Tribunal should focus on what the claimant can do or what the claimant cannot do. This appears to be a well-established principle that was not relevant to this the claimant’s claim, where there was no dispute that he is disabled. Page 7 of 14 11.4. The claimant has provided no explanation of in what way it is contended that there was insufficient consideration of his disability in the Employment Tribunal hearing, hearing process itself, other than naming these authorities. 11.5. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground that the judgment shows “insufficient consideration of the Claimant's disability in the hearing process itself” is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to reconsider the claim on this ground because there is no reasonable prospect of the original Ground 4(b): The treatment of evidence mirrors concerns raised in several EAT cases involving the same Employment Judge. 11.6. The claimant has referred, in support of this ground for his application for reconsideration, to three authorities: ▪ Chindove v William Morrison Supermarket [2014] UKEAT/0043/14; ▪ Poullis v Tesco Stores Ltd [2014] UKEAT/0167/14 (Not Found); and ▪ Tattersall v Fergusons Transport Ltd [2012] UKEAT/0028/12 (Not Found). 11.7. The claimant states that Chindove v William Morrison Supermarket resulted in “criticism of inadequate explanation of evidence treatment”. The claimant has not explained what part of the judgment included that criticism. 11.8. The authority was an appeal against a finding that the claimant had not be constructively dismissed. In the absence of any explanation, it is not clear how this authority any way supports the claimant’s contention in his application for reconsideration that there was any irregularity in his hearing. 11.9. The claimant has not identified any particular irregularity. It is unlikely that there is any salaried Employment Judge that will not at some point be successfully appealed. The mere fact that there has been such an appeal cannot, and does not, form a valid ground to reconsider a decision by the same judge reached a decade later in a different type of claim altogether. 11.10. The authorities of Poullis v Tesco Stores Ltd and Tattersall v Fergusons Transport Ltd could not be found. The claimant does not explain the principles established in these cases, other than stating “Procedural irregularities” and “inadequate consideration of reasonable adjustments” respectively. 11.11. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground that the “treatment of evidence mirrors concerns raised in several EAT cases involving the same Employment Judge” is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to Page 8 of 14[12]Further Grounds 1: “Recent Judicial Recognition” 12.1. The claimant’s application for reconsideration continues under the heading “Recent Judicial Recognition”. 12.2. The claimant refers, in this part of his application for reconsideration, to the “Employment Judge's own postscript dated 30 October 2024”, which he asserts: “acknowledges potential errors in the original judgment, specifically noting:• Insufficient consideration of the Claimant's disability• Inadequate examination of the reasonable adjustments duty• Over-emphasis on the Claimant's experience at the expense of considering adjustments”. 12.3. It is not clear what the claimant is referring to. No postscript has in this case, or indeed in any case ever, been produced by Employment Judge Buzzard. The date that the claimant suggests such a postscript was produced was in fact in the middle of a week when Employment Judge Buzzard was on annual leave and no judicial work of any type was done. 12.4. The date given by the claimant for the postscript appears to be the date upon which Employment Tribunal administration sent the judgment to the claimant. The email sent has been checked and there is no part of it or any attachment (including the judgment) that the claimant could reasonably have understood to be a postscript generated by Employment Judge Buzzard. 12.5. Given Employment Judge Buzzard has not produced any such postscript, there can be no basis for reconsideration that relies on such a non-existent postscript. 12.6. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground titled by the claimant “recent judicial recognition” is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to[13]Further Grounds 2: “Postscript to application for Reconsideration” 13.1. In this part of the claimant’s application for reconsideration he sites a number of additional authorities that “reinforce the grounds for reconsideration”. These are broken into subsections. Further Grounds 2.1: “On Reasonable Adjustments in Assessment Processes” 13.2. The claimant has referred, in support of this ground for his application for ▪ Government Legal Service v Brookes [2017] UKEAT/0302/16; and Page 9 of 14 ▪ Price v Action-Tec Services [2013] UKEAT/0158/13 (Not Found). 13.3. The claimant states that in Government Legal Service v Brookes the following points were made by the EAT:• The EAT upheld that requiring a Situational Judgment Test in a fixed multiple-choice format disadvantaged an autistic candidate• Particularly relevant as it established that assessment methods themselves must be adjusted for neurodivergent candidates• The EAT emphasized that alternative assessment methods must be considered even in highly competitive recruitment processes 13.4. It is not clear how any of these points could form a ground for reconsideration in the claimant’s case. The claimant was not required to undertake a multiple-choice test of any type and a reasonable adjustment to the normal recruitment process was offered. 13.5. Accordingly, the points made in this authority that the claimant has identified appear not to be of any significant relevance to the claimant’s case. 13.6. The claimant states that in Price v Action-Tec Services the following points were made by the EAT:• The EAT held that focusing on written communication skills without considering alternative assessment methods potentially discriminated against a dyslexic candidate• Particularly relevant to my case regarding the written application process 13.7. This authority could not be found. An authority with the parties of Price v Action-Tec Services was found, but it was a first instance decision about associative disability discrimination. There is a case with the citation given by the claimant ([2013] UKEAT/0158/13), but the parties are Hickford v Commissioners for HM Customs and Revenue. That case was about whether the claimant was disabled, which is not the issue in the claimant’s claim. 13.8. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground titled by the claimant as “On Reasonable Adjustments in Assessment Processes” is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to reconsider the claim on this ground because there is no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked on this ground. 13.9. Further Grounds 2.2: “On the Assessment of Impact” 13.10. The claimant has referred, in support of this ground for his application for reconsideration, to the authority of Taiwo v Olaigbe [2016] UKSC 31. 13.11. The authority cited is a claim of race discrimination. It does not appear to be a case that relates to the issue the claimant refers to, namely “whether a Page 10 of 14 PCP created a barrier, not whether removing it would have led to success”. For this reason, contrary to what the claimant says in his reconsideration application this authority does not support his argument that the Tribunal's “excessive focus” on whether he would have succeeded in obtaining the role suggests a ground for reconsideration. 13.12. The Employment Tribunal did not focus on this point. It was one point considered. The claimant’s claim to which this point related, failed for multiple discrete reasons, including that an adjustment was offered that addressed the disadvantage the claimant identified which he refused to engage with on a dishonest pretext that he could not engage with it. 13.13. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground titled by the claimant as “On the Assessment of Impact” is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to reconsider the claim on this ground because there is no reasonable 13.14. Further Grounds 2.3: “On Procedural Fairness” 13.15. The claimant has referred, in support of this ground for his application for reconsideration, to the authority of Rackham v NHS Professionals Ltd [2015] UKEAT/0110/15. 13.16. The claimant correctly states that this authority gives emphasis to the need for Employment Tribunals to ensure their own procedures do not disadvantage disabled litigants, which would include neurodivergent litigants. The claimant does not, however, provide any explanation of in what way he says that there was a failure to take into account his disability in the hearing of this claim that would justify reconsideration. As such, the claimant’s application for reconsideration on this ground is no more than an abstract statement of a legal principle without any reference or connection to this claim or hearing. 13.17. The claimant is a very experienced litigant, fully aware that if he needed an adjustment to the tribunal hearing process he could ask for such an adjustment. No request for any adjustment was made. 13.18. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground titled by the claimant as “On Procedural Fairness” is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to Further Grounds 2.4: “On Previous Decisions by Employment Judge Robinson” 13.19. The claimant’s application for reconsideration on this ground is confusing. It is not clear why the claimant has singled out Employment Judge Robinson and his previous decisions. Employment Judge Robinson took no part in the hearing of this claim. Page 11 of 14 13.20. The claimant purports to provide a list of cases where Employment Judge Robinson’s decisions have been overturned by the EAT “on similar grounds”. These cases are discussed in turn below. 13.21. Baldeh v Churches Housing Association [2019] UKEAT/0290/18 13.21.1. This authority relates to a decision by Employment Judge Dean, not Employment Judge Robinson, or Employment Judge Buzzard. That being noted, the EAT decision is in part in relation to whether that claimant’s style of communication arose from their disability. It does not however relate to a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments, it is in the context of a claim of discrimination arising from disability. 13.21.2. The issue of the claimant’s communication style in this claim only related to his claim of harassment, not his claim of discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments as the claimant’s reconsideration application suggests. 13.21.3. The authority does not appear to assist the claimant in any event. In the present claim the decision was that that the claimant’s evidence about his communication with the respondent was unreliable. Accordingly, it is not correct to assert, as in the cited authority, that the Employment Tribunal failed to take into account evidence about the claimant’s communication. 13.21.4. Further, the claimant’s harassment claim was dismissed on each and every relevant legal test, not just on the basis that the alleged harassment did not relate to his disability. 13.22. MacKenzie v University of Cambridge [2019] UKEAT/0222/18 13.22.1. The citation given by the claimant could not be located. There is a claim in the Employment Tribunal with the parties of MacKenzie v University of Cambridge that has been appealed and considered by the Court of Appeal in 2019. That appeal, however, related solely to the scope of the right to reengagement after an unfair dismissal, not to discrimination. 13.22.2. There does not appear to be any involvement from Employment Judge Robinson, or Employment Judge Buzzard in this long running litigation. 13.22.3. There does not appear to be any issue related to a complaint about discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments in that claim. No reference can be found in the case report that the count considered, as the claimant suggests, “the need to consider cumulative impact of disadvantages”. Page 12 of 14 13.22.4. Accordingly, it is not clear why this authority is cited or what relevant principle it contains that would in any way relate to the claimant’s claim or support an application for reconsideration. 13.23. City of York Council v Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105 13.23.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Employment Judge Forrest, not Employment Judge Robinson as the claimant asserts, or Employment Judge Buzzard. 13.23.2. The claimant incorrectly asserts that this authority is a case which resulted in the overturning of a decision by the higher courts. In fact, in that case, the decisions of the Employment Tribunal and the EAT were upheld by the Court of Appeal, they were not overturned. 13.23.3. The decisions did not, as the claimant suggest, emphasize “the importance of considering how disability affects decision-making and communication”. The appeal related to whether a respondent had to be aware, in a claim of discrimination arising from disability, that the cause of the unfavourable treatment was in fact something arising from disability. The Employment Tribunal, EAT and Court of Appeal all confirmed that this is an objective test, not a subjective one. 13.23.4. It is not clear how that in any way relates to the claimant’s claim, and the claimant has not explained how it relates. The claimant did not claim discrimination arising from disability in this claim. 13.24. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground titled by the claimant as “On Previous Decisions by Employment Judge Robinson” is refused, it appears to be confused and irrelevant to the claimant’s claims. It would not be in the[14]Final Ground: Khorochilova v Euro Rep Limited [2023] EAT 65 14.1. The claimant states in his reconsideration application that this authority: “specifically addresses the duty of tribunals to actively consider whether their own processes might disadvantage disabled litigants, even where specific adjustments have not been requested. This is particularly relevant given the difficulties I experienced in presenting my evidence during the hearing.” 14.2. Despite a careful reading of this authority, no part of it appears to relate in any meaningful way to the conduct of tribunal hearings and the need to adjust how hearings are conducted. The appeal appeared to relate solely to Page 13 of 14 a consideration of whether the Employment Tribunal had properly considered all the evidence before it relating to whether the claimant was disabled, and it was found they had done so in reaching their conclusion that the claimant was not disabled. 14.3. Without being able to find the part of the EAT decision that makes the points the claimant suggests, it is hard to understand what relevance this authority has. 14.4. That being noted, the point of principle the claimant makes is correct. The claimant is a very experienced litigant, fully aware that if he needed an adjustment to the tribunal hearing process, he could ask for such an adjustment. No request for any adjustment was made. 14.5. The claimant has not identified or explained what adjustments he believes should have been made, even though they were not requested. As such, it is very difficult to understand this ground. 14.6. The claimant’s evidence was relatively brief, and he did not appear to be struggling save at those points where he was found to be selectively evasive. The finding of the Employment Tribunal was that this only occurred at points where his claim was being undermined by evidence, and that it was deliberate and strategic. In the context of the claimant’s evidence being found to be dishonest, all relevant adjustments and allowances were made. 14.7. Accordingly, reconsideration on the ground that the Employment Tribunal failed to make unidentified adjustments to the hearing is refused. It would not be in the interests of justice to reconsider the claim on this ground because there is no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked on this ground.[15]For the reasons set out above, the claimant’s application for reconsideration is refused in its entirety.