An employment tribunal decided a dyslexic woman was probably lying about her own disability. Its evidence: she read documents easily sitting beside her barrister, but struggled with the same documents from the witness box. The Employment Appeal Tribunal called that reasoning unfair.

It ordered a full retrial (Habib v Dave Whelan Sports Ltd t/a DW Fitness First, [2023] EAT 113, judgment 23 August 2023, bailii.org). If you're dyslexic and might ever give evidence at a UK tribunal, this is the ruling worth knowing before you get there.

What the tribunal got wrong

Ms Habib brought discrimination and harassment claims against her employer. She is dyslexic, has migraines, and speaks English as a third language.

This differs from the Lloyds case covered here previously, where the discrimination happened at work. Habib is about what happens once a claim reaches the tribunal room.

The tribunal noticed she followed proceedings well while sitting beside her barrister during cross-examination of other witnesses. From the witness box, giving her own evidence, she struggled to follow questions and understand certain words.

The tribunal decided this gap was "hard to escape the conclusion" that there was "an element of performance and exaggeration" in her difficulties. It cited that conclusion as grounds to doubt her honesty across the whole case (Employment Tribunal decision, cited at EAT [2023] 113, paragraph 9). Every one of her claims was rejected.

A preliminary hearing months earlier had already recorded her dyslexia, and the need to phrase questions accordingly. That record should have made the tribunal cautious about reading her difficulties as an act. Instead, the final hearing treated the very inconsistency dyslexia can cause as a reason to disbelieve her.

Reading your inconsistent performance under pressure as proof you're faking it is exactly the reasoning the EAT ruled unlawful.

The guidance tribunals are required to apply

The Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB) is published by the Judicial College for judges and tribunal panels. It explains what dyslexia looks like in a hearing: poor working memory, trouble holding several instructions, and difficulty with compound questions. It also gives judges a direct instruction on how to treat what they see.

"Misunderstandings on their part will not be treated as evasiveness, and inconsistencies will not be regarded as indications of untruthfulness," the Bench Book says. That's the Judicial College's guidance, July 2024 edition, updated February 2026. The tribunal in Habib's case did close to the opposite of what its own guidance told it to do.

The ETBB flags a specific risk worth knowing before you give evidence. A loud or flat voice can be misread as aggression; a lack of eye contact can be misread as evasiveness. None of that is reliable evidence of dishonesty, and the guidance says so in plain terms.

The EAT confirmed something else important: the duty to apply this guidance sits with the tribunal itself, not the claimant's lawyer. Even with representation, the tribunal must independently ensure a disabled person gets a fair hearing. That principle comes from Rackham v NHS Professionals, cited at EAT [2023] 113, paragraph 13.

You don't need to ask permission for a tribunal to consider your dyslexia fairly. That duty is already theirs, whether or not anyone reminds them of it.

Why the whole case had to be reheard

The EAT said a fair hearing covers more than seating arrangements and document formats. It also covers how a tribunal reasons and reaches its conclusions afterwards (EAT [2023] 113, paragraph 15). Doubting a witness's credibility without engaging with the Bench Book's guidance on dyslexia broke that duty.

Because the hearing itself was unfair, the EAT could not simply correct one finding and leave the rest standing. It quoted a Supreme Court warning: a judgment from an unfair trial is "written in water." The entire case, all eight grounds of appeal, went back for a complete rehearing before a different tribunal.

The claims Ms Habib originally brought stemmed from events in 2017. By 2023, when the EAT allowed her appeal, six years had passed and the case still had to start over. Delay on that scale is the real cost of a tribunal getting a disabled claimant's credibility wrong the first time.

A single unexamined assumption about your dyslexia doesn't just put one point at risk. It can unravel an entire tribunal decision, which is why it's worth challenging early, not after judgment.

What the EAT refused to change

Habib's case wasn't a clean win on every point. She'd also asked for three adjustments: her own document bundle, an intermediary in the witness box, and time to recall medical evidence. The EAT rejected all three requests.

Its reasoning: a tribunal can only make a specific adjustment if it has evidence of the specific barrier involved. Simply asserting someone "is dyslexic" isn't enough on its own (EAT [2023] 113, paragraph 30). Where a witness shows an obvious difficulty, though, the tribunal still has to explore it, not ignore it.

This is a narrower ruling than it first sounds. The EAT wasn't saying tribunals must grant every adjustment a disabled claimant asks for. It was saying tribunals must ask for evidence, weigh it fairly, and apply their own guidance to what they observe.

A general label won't get you specific adjustments. Evidence of your actual, particular barriers, written down before the hearing, will.

What this means if you're bringing a claim

If you're dyslexic and preparing for a UK tribunal hearing, put your difficulties on record before the day, not during it. A short assessor's letter describing your specific difficulties, reading, following speech, or working under pressure, gives the tribunal the evidence Habib's case shows was missing.

A formal dyslexia assessment produces exactly this kind of documented evidence. See the assessment cost breakdown for what that typically involves in 2026. If you already have adjustments funded through Access to Work, a formal needs assessment can add to your file; check your eligibility with the Access to Work calculator.

Deciding how much to say about your dyslexia, and when, is its own decision, whether that's to an employer or in a tribunal claim. The disclosure decision guide walks through that trade-off if you haven't made the call yet.

A short example: if cross-examination moves fast and you lose track of a multi-part question, you don't have to guess. Ask for the question to be broken up, or repeated one part at a time. That's an ordinary case management request, and Habib shows refusing it without good reason is exactly what the EAT will scrutinise on appeal.

A practical script for raising it

At a preliminary hearing, ask for a line in the case management order stating that you are dyslexic, and that the panel will have regard to the Equal Treatment Bench Book. If a difficulty comes up mid-hearing, say so out loud and ask for a short break rather than pushing through. Both requests are ordinary case management, not special treatment.

US readers: there's no direct equivalent of the Bench Book in US federal or state courts. The ADA and the EEOC's own hearing procedures separately require reasonable accommodations for disabled witnesses and complainants. Ask your EEOC investigator or attorney about hearing accommodations directly, since the process differs from the UK route described here.

The call: if you are dyslexic and bringing, or defending, a UK tribunal claim, get your specific difficulties in writing before the hearing starts. Name Habib v Dave Whelan Sports Ltd [2023] EAT 113 if a tribunal's later reasoning about your credibility doesn't grapple with the Equal Treatment Bench Book.

That one paragraph of preparation is the difference between a tribunal treating your dyslexia fairly the first time, and a retrial two years later.