A non-practising barrister has failed to persuade the High Court that ‘unseasonably hot weather’ during a county court trial made the proceedings unfair.
Natasha Sivanandan challenged Capstone Foster Care’s decision not to approve her application to be a foster carer, alleging breaches of the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998 and negligence.
Sivanandan - a race equality campaigner who trained as a barrister and practised in criminal law - saw her claims dismissed after a county court trial before His Honour Judge Saunders in 2023.
On appeal, the High Court heard Saunders had dispensed with robes because he thought the heat would be ‘oppressive’ and said an usher had put a couple of fans out in court. ‘If anyone feels unwell or does not want to continue and wants a break, please let me know straight away’, the judge said.
Notwithstanding this invitation from the judge to inform him of any difficulties, Sivanandan said nothing, the High Court heard. But in her supplemental closing skeleton following the trial, she drew attention to her disability and wrote: ‘The temperature outside was over 40 degrees and the temperature in the court room was excessive and probably in breach of health and safety at work legislation.
‘I felt my health was put at risk but was too afraid to say anything. The hearing should have been adjourned. By the third day I was suffering from ill health due to severe dehydration and I could not function at my best.’
On appeal, Sivanandan cited the effect of the hot courtroom conditions on her health and ability to represent herself.
Dismissing her appeal, Mr Justice Sweeting said: ‘It is clear that the trial judge sought to take into account and mitigate the unseasonably hot weather during which the hearing took place. Only the applicant could have made an assessment of the effect of the heat upon her and the extent to which it interfered with her ability to participate in the proceedings. There was no application to adjourn.
‘While such matters are to be taken seriously, they must reach a level that demonstrates that the integrity of the entire litigation process was critically undermined to justify reopening.’
