HMCTS responded to a formal ADHD/ASD reasonable adjustment request by sending a leaflet about wheelchair ramps and hearing loops. No neurodivergent adjustments. No cognitive support. The system does not know invisible disabilities exist.
On the left, what was asked for. On the right, what was received. The gap between these two columns is the gap between the law and reality for neurodivergent court users.
Michael formally requested reasonable adjustments for ADHD and ASD under the Equality Act 2010 s.20 and Practice Direction 1A.
HMCTS sent a leaflet about wheelchair ramps, hearing loops, and physical access.
The entire Rolls Building disability framework has no mechanism for invisible disabilities. Their response to 'I have ADHD and ASD' was 'here is information about wheelchair ramps.' The system literally does not know neurodivergent conditions exist.
The leaflet demonstrates that HMCTS equates 'disability' with 'physical impairment.' Wheelchair ramps and hearing loops are the beginning and end of their adjustments framework. Cognitive, executive function, and sensory processing differences are not contemplated.
The request specifically identified ADHD and ASD. A response about wheelchair ramps proves that nobody read the request. The system processed a disability notification and returned a generic physical access leaflet without engaging with the content.
This is not one official making one mistake. This is the system functioning as designed. The leaflet is what the system produces. It is the only material the system has. There is nothing else to send because nothing else exists.
The leaflet engages at least four statutory provisions. Each creates an independent ground of challenge.
Section 20 requires that where a provision, criterion, or practice puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, the responsible body must take reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage. The duty is anticipatory. It does not arise only when a request is made. The leaflet proves that HMCTS has no anticipatory framework for neurodivergent court users. The duty has never been discharged because the mechanism to discharge it does not exist.
Practice Direction 1A requires the court to consider whether a party is vulnerable and, if so, whether participation directions are necessary. A person with ADHD and ASD is a vulnerable party within the meaning of PD 1A. The leaflet proves that the court has no process for identifying vulnerability arising from neurodivergent conditions. PD 1A compliance requires more than wheelchair ramps.
Section 15 provides that a person discriminates against a disabled person if they treat them unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability. A neurodivergent person whose reasonable adjustment request is met with a physical disability leaflet is treated unfavourably. The unfavourable treatment arises because the system does not recognise their type of disability. The something arising in consequence of disability is the need for cognitive adjustments that the system cannot provide.
Section 149 requires HMCTS, as a public authority, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity. A disability framework that only addresses physical impairments demonstrates a failure to have due regard to the full range of protected characteristics. The leaflet is evidence that the PSED has not been met.
Their response to 'I have ADHD and ASD' was 'here is information about wheelchair ramps.'
If this is what the Rolls Building sends to someone with ADHD, what do they send to everyone else with invisible disabilities?
This is not one failure. This is structural incapacity. The system does not have material about neurodivergent conditions because it has never produced any. It does not have a process for cognitive adjustments because it has never designed one. It does not know what ADHD is because nobody in the system has been required to learn.
The wheelchair ramp leaflet is not an insult. It is a confession. It confesses that the entire reasonable adjustments framework at the Rolls Building was built for one category of disability and has never been updated to include any other. Every neurodivergent person who has passed through those doors has been offered wheelchair ramps.
The question for the Court of Appeal is not whether Michael Darius Eastwood received reasonable adjustments. He did not. The question is whether the system is capable of providing them to anyone with an invisible disability. The leaflet answers that question.
I believe that the facts stated on this website are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Michael Darius Eastwood
Litigant in Person
ADHD + ASD (Equality Act 2010 s.6) | HMCTS RA Ref: 67862925
London, United Kingdom