A few days before the hearing, the Claimant's solicitors asked that the first day of the hearing be used for reading so that the Claimant could give her evidence on the second day instead of starting it on the first day and then having to recess overnight. The Respondent did not object to this request. The letter sent by the Claimant's solicitor and the question of whether the first day should be a reading day was raised by the EJ at the outset. He suggested that a full day of reading was probably unnecessary and that the tribunal would read for the morning and reconvene with the parties after the lunch break. The Claimant started giving her evidence after the lunch break. The claim was dismissed. After receiving the oral decision, the Claimant collapsed and was taken to hospital by ambulance. The Claimant appealed on the ground that there had been a failure to make a reasonable adjustment and/or breach of the right to a fair trial because she had not been permitted to start her evidence on the second day of the hearing.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. When the possibility of the Claimant commencing evidence on the second day was first raised by her then solicitors they did not refer to it being a reasonable adjustment. It was stated to be "desirable" in the light of the claimant's health and the pressure of giving evidence. It was the Respondents that referred to the proposal as amounting to a reasonable adjustment, in their response to the request, to which they did not object. The ET was entitled to take into account the possibility that giving evidence with scope for breaks between relatively short sessions might be beneficial to the Claimant. If she strongly disagreed with that view, and wished to assert her right for her voice to be heard on that matter, she could have instructed her Counsel to make submissions to that effect.