Dyslexic claimant judged 'exaggerating': EAT ordered a rehearing

The tribunal refused three requests from a dyslexic claimant, then called her difficulties partly acting. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judged the hearing unfair on 23 August 2023, and not because of the refusals. The case is Habib v Dave Whelan Sports Ltd [2023] EAT 113, and it still shapes how you should prepare for a UK hearing.

What the first tribunal did

Ms F Habib brought employment claims against Dave Whelan Sports Ltd, trading as DW Fitness First. The Employment Tribunal dismissed all of them after a final hearing. She appealed (EAT case EA-2020-000983-LA).

During the hearing she asked for three things. She wanted her own bundles of documents admitted, an intermediary named Ms O'Reilly to help her, and a chance to be recalled to put in medical records. The tribunal refused all three, and on the intermediary it said there was no medical or expert evidence that one was needed (paras 4, 7 and 8 of the EAT judgment).

Then it weighed her evidence. It found "an element of performance and exaggeration in the Claimant's difficulties" and said she was "not being entirely truthful" on some issues (paras 204 and 207 of the tribunal's reasons, as quoted by the EAT).

A tribunal can accept that you are dyslexic and still read your hearing difficulties as acting, so your job is to give it evidence that blocks that reading.

Why the EAT sent it back

The panel, led by His Honour Judge Wayne Beard, did not say the refusals were wrong on their own. At paragraph 30 it held that the three refusals did not by themselves show a failure to make appropriate adjustments. Part of the reason was that the tribunal had limited evidence of how far her difficulties went.

The problem came next. The tribunal made findings about her truthfulness with no reference to the Equal Treatment Bench Book or the Presidential Guidance on vulnerable witnesses (para 33). The EAT added that "there is always a danger in relying, simply, on demeanour as a guide to the truthfulness or not of evidence."

Paragraph 35 makes two more points. Nobody told Ms Habib that the existence or extent of her dyslexia was in issue. And the tribunal's reasons did not meet the Meek standard for explaining a decision.

The EAT called the hearing unfair and ordered the whole case to be heard again, in front of a different panel (paras 29 and 35 to 36). It did not decide whether her original claims were right.

A fair hearing is what this case gives you. Whether you win still depends on the facts, so build your evidence for the claim and for the hearing.

What the Bench Book says about dyslexic witnesses

The Equal Treatment Bench Book is guidance for judges. The EAT quoted it on dyslexia: misunderstandings "will not be treated as evasiveness" and inconsistencies "will not be regarded as indications of untruthfulness" (para 12).

The same guidance warns that credibility can suffer when a person does not "perform" as expected. That is the trap. A witness who loses their place in a bundle, answers the wrong half of a long question or says "I don't remember" can look evasive.

Reading under pressure, holding a long question in working memory and finding a word quickly are all things dyslexia can affect. A judge who knows that reads the pause differently. A judge who has not been told may not.

Tell the tribunal this before the day, so a lost place or a wrong-footed answer gets read through the guidance and not as evasion.

What to send the tribunal before your hearing

The EAT noted limited evidence of the extent of Ms Habib's difficulties, and the tribunal refused her intermediary for want of medical or expert evidence. Evidence is the gap you can close.

Write to the tribunal and copy the other side as soon as you have your hearing date. Name the task, the effect and the change you want.

For example: "I lose my place finding pages in a bundle under time pressure. This can make my answers look hesitant. I ask for page numbers to be repeated and questions put one at a time."

Attach what you have: an assessment report, a letter from a clinician or a workplace needs assessment. If you have none, say so and ask the tribunal what it would accept. The dyslexia assessment cost guide shows what a report costs in the UK and US in 2026.

Ask the tribunal to confirm in writing what it will do. If it refuses something, you hold a dated record of what you asked for and why you asked.

A hypothetical example

A witness is asked: "You said March in your statement, so why does your email say April?" A dyslexic witness may need both dates in front of them, because holding two dates and a contrast in working memory is hard. Without a request on file, a slow or mixed answer can read as inconsistency.

With the request on file, the judge has a reason to slow down. The question can be repeated, put in writing or split in two.

One dated email with evidence attached does more than three requests made out loud on the day.

Your deadline got longer, so use the time

For acts on or after 1 October 2026, most UK tribunal claims now have six months to start, up from three (Lewis Silkin, 24 September 2026). ACAS early conciliation comes first, and it can now run up to 12 weeks (same source).

That extra time is a chance to gather the evidence a tribunal asks for. Book the assessment, ask your GP or specialist for a letter, and write down how dyslexia affects specific tasks. If you are still deciding what to do about work, the disclosure decision guide covers what to put in writing and when.

A July 2026 ruling shows the language to use. An employment judge recorded that Mr Young was disabled by dyslexia, including cognitive weakness in working memory and processing speed (Young v YTL Construction (UK) Ltd, case 6008214/2025, judgment 22 July 2026). Describe your own effects at that level of detail.

Start collecting evidence now, because the case that turned on missing evidence in 2023 will turn on it again.

What this means for you

If you are a dyslexic claimant heading to a UK hearing, send your written request the week you get the date. Describe the effect of dyslexia on giving evidence, name the changes you want, attach your evidence and ask the tribunal to apply the Bench Book guidance. Don't wait for the judge to spot it on the day.

If you are in a disciplinary or capability meeting at work, the same logic holds. Ask for questions in writing and for time to answer, and put the request in an email first. The Access to Work guide and our other rights articles cover the workplace side.

If you are in the US, this case is UK law and does not apply to you. Your early deadline is an EEOC charge, due within 180 days of the act, or 300 days in many states (EEOC). The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) gives free guidance on accommodations.

Do the paperwork before the hearing, because the hearing room is the worst place to explain how your brain handles questions.