Equality Act 2010 and the Civil Procedure Rules: Court refuses late timetable adjustments in unfair prejudice claim

Berry Smith represented B Musa and Cwm Care Ltd in successfully defending an unfair prejudice claim brought by shareholder Ashley. The dispute concerned an application by the unsuccessful applicant shareholder, a solicitor, for retrospective variations to the court timetable and relief from sanctions for non‑compliance with earlier directions. The applicant argued that dyslexia, anxiety and depression entitled her to more time and that the court had failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 (EA). The Court was required to consider for the first time how the EA interacts with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in civil proceedings. The Court first assessed the application against established legal principles on medical evidence and found the medical evidence insufficient to justify the relief sought. It noted that a three‑month stay would likely vacate the trial and that an adjournment would have a similar effect. The petitioner was permitted to renew her application but warned it faced a substantial risk of failure. The Court then examined the EA provisions relied upon. It accepted that the petitioner’s conditions would amount to a protected characteristic under section 6 and that refusing the request could constitute "unfavourable treatment" under section 15 (discrimination arising from disability). Applying R (Howard) v Official Receiver, the Judge held that section 29 (service provision) does not apply to judicial functions because of the exemption in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 of the EA. Nonetheless, section 15 was engaged, but the Court concluded that the refusal of relief was not automatically attributable to the petitioner’s disability. The decision turned on the extremely late timing of the request, the potential prejudice to the respondents if it were granted, and the inefficient use of time already afforded to the petitioner. Even if the Court’s reasoning on the EA were wrong, refusal of the application was justified as a proportionate means of securing a fair trial. The judgement underscores that the Equality Act 2010 can influence but does not displace the Civil Procedure Rules; requests for adjustments should be promptly made and supported by clear evidence; and courts will balance equality obligations with fairness and procedural efficiency. Berry Smith represented B Musa and Cwm Care Ltd with a team composed by: the firm’s dispute resolution team (litigation), offering specialist advice on dispute resolution and court procedure. For further assistance the team can be contacted at disputeresolution@berrysmith.com or on 02920 345 511.

Equality Act 2010 and the Civil Procedure Rules: Court refuses late timetable adjustments in unfair prejudice claim

Read the full story

Cookie Preferences

Strictly Necessary

Analytics & Statistics

Marketing & Ads