in person v Respondent — 2024

The claimant brought a disability discrimination claim arising from an unsuccessful job application made through LinkedIn. He said the respondent should have made a reasonable adjustment by giving him an oral interview because his disabilities meant he could not tailor written applications. The tribunal found that the respondent did not require a CV, did not read the claimant's CV, and did not know of his disabilities or request for adjustments until he expressly raised them, which it said was not unreasonable for an automatic application process. Once the respondent became aware of his position, it offered the requested adjustment, but the claimant refused it.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the reasonable-adjustments complaint failed. It also recorded that the claimant met the essential criteria for the role but did not have the preferred Solid Works experience, that the respondent shortlisted only applicants who met all essential and preferred criteria, and that the role was ultimately not filled because of uncertainty around funding. The tribunal therefore treated the underlying discrimination claim as weak and unsuccessful.

The original costs decision, later reconsidered, held that the claim was not shown to have no reasonable prospect of success, but that the claimant's conduct in bringing and continuing the proceedings was unreasonable for the purposes of rule 76(1)(a). On reconsideration the tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant, his GP and Sara Heath, accepted that the claimant had autism, dyspraxia and ADHD, but did not accept that those conditions fully explained his litigation conduct or the way he had disclosed his means.

The tribunal found that the claimant had rushed to litigation, refused the adjustment when offered, pursued the claim despite lacking evidence to challenge the respondent's account, and had made incomplete or inaccurate disclosures about income and assets, including property interests and settlement income. It declined to award the respondent their full costs, but taking the midpoint of the respondent's warning letter, it ordered the claimant to pay £7,500.