Galo v Bombardier Aerospace UK

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a Slovakian national employed by Company A as a composite operator from October 2007, was suspended in March 2013 following allegations of gross misconduct involving two incidents. The first incident involved throwing work equipment, and the second involved aggressive behavior towards an occupational health doctor. The Appellant lodged complaints with the Industrial Tribunal (IT) alleging victimisation, disability, race discrimination, harassment, detriment, and unfair dismissal. Some claims were later withdrawn, and the cases were consolidated. The Appellant was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome (AS), a disability impacting his communication and behavior. Despite this, the Tribunal hearings and case management failed to adequately consider his disability or make reasonable adjustments. The Appellant lost legal representation in August 2014, and procedural difficulties ensued, including failure to provide witness statements and applications for adjournments that were refused. The IT proceeded to hear the unfair dismissal claim in the Appellant's absence and ultimately dismissed it. The Appellant appealed on grounds of procedural unfairness related to the handling of his disability during the Tribunal process.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal afforded the Appellant a fair hearing given his disability of Asperger's Syndrome.
2. Whether the Tribunal failed to make reasonable adjustments for the Appellant's disability in accordance with relevant disability and human rights legislation.
3. Whether the refusal to adjourn the hearing and the decision to proceed in the Appellant's absence were lawful and procedurally fair.
4. The extent of the Tribunal's duty to actively consider and accommodate the needs of a disabled litigant in the conduct of proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to properly take into account his disability and medical evidence, resulting in an unfair hearing.
• He argued that the Tribunal failed to make reasonable adjustments for his Asperger's Syndrome.
• The Tribunal unreasonably refused multiple adjournments despite medical evidence supporting such requests.
• The Tribunal imposed oppressive demands during the hearing process and struck out all claims except unfair dismissal.
• The Tribunal proceeded to hear the unfair dismissal claim in his absence without adequate consideration of his medical condition.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent maintained that the Tribunal acted within its discretion in refusing adjournments without sufficient medical evidence.
• It was argued that the Appellant failed to comply with Tribunal directions and that proceeding in his absence was justified due to delays and logistical issues.
• The Respondent highlighted the burden on the Appellant to prove the need for adjournments based on medical incapacity.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Teinaz v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2002] ICR 1471	Requirement for medical evidence to justify adjournment due to incapacity to attend hearing.	The Tribunal relied on this authority to require the Appellant to prove inability to attend and refused adjournment without sufficient medical detail.
R (Osborn) v Parole Board and Others [2014] AC 1115	Common law duty of fairness in hearings, including the need for procedural fairness and effective participation.	The court applied the principles of fairness outlined by Lord Reed to assess the adequacy of the Tribunal's procedures for a disabled litigant.
Re G and A (Care Order: Freeing Order: Parents with a Learning Disability) [2006] NI Fam 8	Need for courts to ensure people with learning disabilities receive individual support and removal of barriers to participation.	The court referenced this to underscore the necessity for accommodations and support tailored to the Appellant's disability.
In The Matter of D (A Child) No. 3 [2016] EWFC 1	Recognition of the rights of disabled individuals to participate fully in legal proceedings.	Approved the principles from Re G and A, reinforcing the need for tailored support.
CPS v Fraser (UKEAT/0021/13)	Guidance on accommodating litigants with mental health disabilities in hearings.	Used to identify principles on fair treatment and adjustments for mental disabilities.
R v Isleworth Crown Court ex parte King [2001] EWCA Admin 22	Recognition of the needs of mentally disabled litigants and the requirement for procedural adaptations.	Supported the court’s emphasis on appropriate adjustments and fair treatment.
Rackham v MHS Professional Ltd (UKEAT/0110/15 LA)	Reasonable adjustments in Tribunal procedure for disabled litigants, including advance provision of cross-examination questions.	Highlighted as a model for adjustments that should have been considered for the Appellant.
Cathaill v Transport for London [2013] IRLR 3010	Discretion of tribunals to grant or refuse adjournments.	Referenced to clarify that requiring medical evidence for adjournments is not unlawful per se.
Kotecha v Insurety t/a Capital Health Care UKEAT/0537/09	Considerations on adjournment and procedural fairness.	Cited to support the court’s approach to procedural discretion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court undertook an independent assessment of whether procedural fairness was observed, emphasizing that it must determine for itself if a fair procedure was followed rather than merely reviewing the Tribunal’s judgment. The Court recognized that the Appellant’s Asperger’s Syndrome constituted a significant disability affecting his ability to participate in the hearing, requiring reasonable adjustments. Despite early knowledge of the disability and the existence of a comprehensive clinical report, the Tribunal failed to make appropriate inquiries or adjustments, such as convening a ground rules hearing or considering alternative forms of representation.

The Court noted the absence of engagement with the Appellant’s condition throughout the case management hearings and the substantive hearing, including failure to consider the Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB) guidance, which provides practical advice for accommodating disabled litigants. The Tribunal’s refusal to adjourn the hearing, reliance on inadequate medical evidence, and decision to proceed in the Appellant’s absence were found to be procedurally unfair, particularly given the medical evidence indicating the Appellant was unfit to attend.

The Court further highlighted the Tribunal’s unjustified conclusion that the Appellant’s non-attendance was deliberate and disruptive, which was contradicted by the medical reports. The Court emphasized the Tribunal’s duty to proactively ensure fair participation of disabled litigants, including exploring representation options and obtaining expert assessments when necessary. The failure to do so resulted in a denial of procedural fairness.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED THE APPEAL on the basis that the Industrial Tribunal failed to provide the Appellant with a fair procedural hearing.

The matter was referred back for a rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal, which is expected to take into account the Appellant’s disability and apply appropriate procedural adjustments as outlined in the judgment. The decision directly affects the parties by mandating a fresh hearing conducted with due regard to fairness and disability accommodations. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles regarding procedural fairness and the treatment of disabled litigants in Tribunal proceedings.