Cohen 'had you had counsel' remark. But single remark may not suffice alone.
The Applicant was treated differently because of his disability. Recorder Cohen: 'had you had counsel maybe you would have won.' Rather than providing adjustments to level the playing field, the court punished the disability.
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
Article 14 requires a comparator. The applicant has not shown a non-disabled person in similar circumstances would have been treated differently.
Cohen's own remark provides the comparator: 'had you had counsel maybe you would have won.' A represented party WOULD have won. The disability prevented effective representation (ADHD impacting self-advocacy, no legal aid). Rather than providing adjustments to level the playing field, the court punished the disability. Cam v Turkey: disability discrimination engages Article 14.
The applicant chose to litigate in person. That is not the court's responsibility.
No legal aid available. No pro bono counsel available for complex multi-party commercial litigation. Costs of representation prohibitive (defendants' solicitors charging GBP 350+/hour). LiP status is not a 'choice' but a consequence of resource inequality compounded by disability. EA 2010 s.20 imposes a DUTY on the court to adjust, regardless of how the person came to be unrepresented.
Logged and scheduled. 12 requests across 6 courts, 7 judges. 0 granted.
Official costs statement. Bowden-Brown GBP 590/hr. Fairley brief GBP 11,000.
Fallback: Article 14 adds Convention dimension to EA 2010 claims. Not strictly necessary if domestic discrimination succeeds.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.