Burke v The College of Law & Anor

When deciding whether reasonable adjustments have been made, a tribunal may assess an interdependent package of measures as a whole. It may find that the duty is discharged where the measures substantially reduce the disabled person’s disadvantage and the proposed further arrangements are impracticable or unreasonable.

A tribunal’s reasons need to explain its factual conclusions and why it reached its result. They need not be an elaborate or formalistic account of every item of evidence.

A disabled candidate for the Legal Practice Course sought examination arrangements substantially beyond those agreed by the College of Law. They included unsupervised examinations at home over several days, or supervised examinations at his Brighton home.

The employment tribunal dismissed his claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It held that the examination time requirement was a competence standard and, alternatively, that the respondents’ package of adjustments was reasonable. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal: UKEAT/0301/10/SM.

Permission for a second appeal was limited to the time-requirement issue. The central question became whether the employment tribunal had in fact decided that the adjustments made to that requirement were reasonable.

Appeal dismissed unanimously. Kitchin LJ gave the judgment, with which Tomlinson and Laws LJJ agreed.

1. Section 14B of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 imposed a duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled candidate placed at a substantial disadvantage by a provision, criterion or practice other than a competence standard. The court did not decide whether the particular examination time requirement was a competence standard. The reasonable-adjustments issue was dispositive and the court had not heard substantive argument on the former issue.

2. The employment tribunal had decided that the adjustments were reasonable. It was entitled to assess the requirements as interdependent and to consider the adjustments in the aggregate. The accommodation near the examination site, splitting of examinations, extended timetable, additional time and breaks together reduced the candidate’s fatigue, stress and tiredness.

3. The tribunal was entitled to find that the further home-based arrangements sought were impracticable and unreasonable. The adjustments already made met the candidate’s legitimate concerns. The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s reasoning also supported that conclusion: further additional time beyond the evidential limit would destroy the examination’s ability to test work under time pressure.

4. The tribunal’s reasons were adequate under Meek v City of Birmingham District Council, [1987] IRLR 250 (CA). They identified the disadvantage, explained how the package addressed it, and gave sufficient reasons for the result. A tribunal is not required to produce an elaborate formalistic judgment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the second appeal and upheld the finding that reasonable adjustments had been made: [2012] EWCA Civ 37.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Dismissed the appeal from the employment tribunal. It upheld the competence-standard finding and held, in any event, that adequate reasonable adjustments had been made: UKEAT/0301/10/SM.
• Employment tribunal: Dismissed the claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, finding that the respondents had not failed to make reasonable adjustments.