Every formal request for reasonable adjustments under Practice Direction 1A and the Equality Act 2010 s.20. 12 requests across 8 judges. Zero granted. Zero per cent compliance.
Data source: ra_requests.json (updated 2026-03-21) | Generated: 2026-04-14 08:58:08 UTC
Every formal reasonable adjustment request, in chronological order. Each one denied or ignored.
Seven specific adjustments were requested under Practice Direction 1A. The table below shows how many times each was requested and how many times it was granted.
| Adjustment | PD 1A Reference | Requested | Granted | Clinical Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breaks every 45-60 minutes | PD 1A para 3.1(a) | 7 | 0 | ADHD causes reduced sustained attention and executive function fatigue. Regular breaks prevent cognitive overload and maintain ability to participate effectively. |
| Email service accepted | PD 1A para 3.1(b) | 3 | 0 | ADHD and ASD cause difficulties with paper-based document management. Digital service enables search, annotation, and structured organisation. |
| 14-day buffers for deadlines | PD 1A para 3.1(c) | 9 | 0 | Executive function deficits impair time management and task initiation. Extended deadlines compensate for processing speed impairment documented by Dr Woolley. |
| Written aids permitted 48h before hearing | PD 1A para 3.1(d) | 7 | 0 | Impaired working memory and oral fluency require written reference materials. Without them, the litigant cannot recall or articulate complex arguments under pressure. |
| Remote/hybrid hearing option | PD 1A para 3.1(e) | 4 | 0 | Familiar environment reduces sensory overload (ASD) and anxiety. Remote participation enables use of digital tools that compensate for executive function deficits. |
| Structured issue lists | PD 1A para 3.1(f) | 5 | 0 | Sequencing difficulty (documented by Dr Woolley) means unstructured hearings are inaccessible. Written agendas prevent cognitive disorganisation. |
| Nominated SPOC | PD 1A para 3.1(g) | 3 | 0 | Multiple court contacts create confusion and administrative burden incompatible with executive function deficits. A single contact reduces cognitive load. |
Where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, [A must] take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
Equality Act 2010, s.20(3)Where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, [A must] take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
Equality Act 2010, s.20(4)A person (a 'service-provider') concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.
Equality Act 2010, s.29(1)A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B) [...] as to the terms on which A provides the service to B [...] by subjecting B to any other detriment.
Equality Act 2010, s.29(2)The court should consider whether a party's participation in the proceedings, or the quality of evidence given by a party or witness, is likely to be diminished by reason of vulnerability and, if so, whether it is necessary to make directions to ensure their effective participation.
CPR Practice Direction 1A, para 2Directions may include but are not limited to: (a) regular breaks; (b) use of simple language; (c) additional time for reading documents; (d) use of communication aids; (e) provisions for remote attendance; (f) use of a single point of contact; (g) directions on the format and length of documents.
CPR Practice Direction 1A, para 5 (adapted summary)Each judge below was involved in at least one hearing or order where reasonable adjustments were formally requested and denied.
The following medical evidence establishes the protected characteristics and the functional impairments that necessitate reasonable adjustments.
| Date | Clinician | Diagnosis / Finding | Functional Impairments | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06.11.2024 | Dr James Woolley Consultant Psychiatrist FRCPsych |
ADHD | Impaired working memory, reduced processing speed, executive function deficits, sequencing difficulty, oral fluency impairment | HMCTS RA 67862925 GEN-MED-001 |
| 16.12.2024 | SW London NHS Foundation Trust Mental Health Crisis Team |
Acute Psychiatric Distress | Severe psychological distress caused by litigation abuse and systematic denial of disability accommodations | Exhibit ME2 |
| 24.03.2025 | Dr James McDermott Specialist Diagnostic Clinician |
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) | Sensory processing difficulties, social communication differences, executive function compounded with ADHD | Second protected characteristic |
| 18.04.2025 | GP Primary Care |
Chronic Insomnia, GAD, Major Depressive Episode | All attributed to 'ongoing court-related stress and systematic denial of reasonable adjustments' | GP letter |
The Equality Act 2010 s.20 imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments. PD 1A translates this into concrete procedural obligations. The duty is anticipatory: it does not wait for a request. The duty is non-delegable: each decision-maker bears it independently.
12 requests were made. Zero were granted. This is not a single oversight by a single judge. It is a systemic pattern across 8 judicial officers, 4 courts, 3 case numbers, and 18 months of proceedings.
The statistical improbability of this outcome under a neutral system is significant. If each request had even a 50% chance of being granted, the probability of 12 consecutive refusals is 1 in 4,096. If the expected compliance rate for PD 1A requests is higher (as the legislation intends), the probability drops further.
The GP letter of 18.04.2025 directly attributes the Claimant's psychiatric deterioration to 'ongoing court-related stress and systematic denial of reasonable adjustments'. The denial of adjustments is not merely procedurally irregular. It has caused measurable, documented harm.
This page exists so that any judge, mediator, ombudsman, or appellate court can see the full picture in one place. The evidence is verifiable. The pattern is clear.