1/ Mallon v Aecom Ltd: EAT allows appeal against strike out of a dyspraxic's reasonable adjustment claim concerned with the disadvantage in having to fill in online job application forms. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6037b49f… #ukemplaw
2/ Mr Mallon was a serial claimant, having brought over 30 similar claims, 29 of which he'd withdrawn and three of which he'd lost (one with costs). I suspect that heavily influenced the EJ confronted with a strike out application.
3/ The EJ analysed the case on the basis of a PCP to apply by way of an online form. It held M did not suffer a substantial disadvantage given that he could get help and doubtless influenced by knowledge that M had filled in online forms elsewhere (including for the ET claims).
4/ The EAT allowed M's appeal. As seems to be the case with all of HHJ Tayler's judgments, the judgment is full of the practical observations of a formerly highly experienced EJ.
5/ 1st on strike out, he urges parties to consider proportionality under the overriding objective before applying. Pleasingly he takes a similar view as I do that applying solely for the less exacting deposit order is often a far more sensible tactic. 
6/ 2ndly, HHJ Tayler bemoaned the regularity with which ETs presume a reasonable adjustments claim through the PCP lens (the 1st requirement) rather than as a physical feature or auxiliary aid case.
7/ This was one such a case. The ET had analysed the claim on the basis of a PCP to apply by online form, whilst the claim ought to have been considered (at least additionally) as a failure to provide an auxiliary aid case.
8/ Finally, on substantial disadvantage, HHJ Tayler was sympathetic to submissions that a person ought not to be expected to seek out help to avoid substantial disadvantage. M had said he'd not ask his wife to help as she wasn't his carer, & he was embarrassed to rely on friends.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
