Committee publication · Engagement document · 14 April 2026
Access to Justice engagement event, Monday 9 March 2026: Summary Note - Disability Discrimination
From: Justice Committee
Inquiry: Access to Justice
Summary
Summary note from the Justice Committee's 9 March 2026 engagement event on disability discrimination and access to justice. Practitioners and people with lived experience identified systemic barriers: severe shortage of legal advisors in Equality Act cases, low damages deterring firm involvement, prohibitive costs risks forcing litigants in person, poor court accessibility, and respondents' resistance to compliance. Participants proposed dedicated advice pathways, qualified one-way costs-shifting, streamlined tracks, court estate audits, and specialist discrimination lists.
Key findings
- Acute shortage of solicitors and barristers undertaking Equality Act services; most claimants proceed as litigants in person because work is viewed as uneconomic.
- Modest damages and weak fee-recovery incentives mean 'no win, no fee' arrangements are rare, and firms decline hundreds of enquiries for each case accepted.
- Track allocation practices create chilling effects: late switches from small claims to fast track expose claimants to significant costs and have led to case withdrawals despite strong merits.
- Court estate and process accessibility is poor: inappropriate security searches of wheelchair users, non-automated doors, staff resistance to assistance dogs, and unreliable hearing loops.
- Respondents frequently contest liability, dispute disability status, or use complex landlord/tenant arrangements to deflect responsibility; compliance depends on persistent individual pressure rather than proactive business practice.
Tone
CriticalTopics
Key actors
Justice Committee, Solicitors and barristers (Equality Act practitioners), Litigants in person with disability discrimination claims, Retail and hospitality businesses, Local authorities, Court staff
Notable line
“Damages in Equality Act claims are typically modest, creating weak incentives for firms to follow the law and making "no win …”
Key Quotes
“There is a severe shortage of solicitors and barristers undertaking Equality Act services cases. Work is viewed as uneconomic and cost risks are high, so most claimants proceed as litigants in person”
“Am I using the right words? Is this an access refusal or a failure to make reasonable adjustments? What is the anticipatory duty? What should a letter before action contain?”
“Damages in Equality Act claims are typically modest, creating weak incentives for firms to follow the law and making "no win, no fee" arrangements rare unless the defendant is large and prospects of recovery are strong.”
“In one case, after a small ‑ claims allocation the court informed the LiP at the last moment that the matter had moved to fast track following a respondent appeal. The claim was discontinued due to fear of costs.”
“… participants perceived power imbalances. They encountered requests to "prove" disability , limited awareness of the option for a judge to sit with an assessor in Equality Act claims, and judicial culture that may undervalue lived experience unless the judge has personal familiarity with disability.”
“Establish predictable costs protection for Equality Act claims (e.g., a QOCS ‑ style regime) so meritorious low ‑ damages claims can proceed without prohibitive downside risk.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗