While TCAP’s focus has stayed on Cummins Inc and the cloud around its leadership, culture and legal tactics, we now draw attention to a related thread – Cepac Ltd, where Wendy Miller KC of St Philips Chambers acts as counsel in my parallel appeal.
Earlier this week, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed that my appeal against Cepac Ltd has been accepted for review under Rule 3 of the EAT Rules, showing it meets the initial criteria for further consideration. Rule 3 is a procedural stage in which the EAT checks timing, paperwork and whether legal points justify a full hearing gov.uk. This is not yet the substantive hearing, but the case has passed the EAT’s initial procedural assessment and moves to deeper review.
The Legal Context
The appeal challenges two procedural orders made by Employment Judge Arullendran on 17 March 2025:
- The dismissal of my strike‑out application without giving reasons.
- The imposition of a correspondence ban despite my documented disability.
It raises legal grounds in procedural fairness, discrimination arising from disability (section 15, Equality Act 2010) and failure to make reasonable adjustments (section 20). It includes medical evidence and cites case law and Tribunal Rules. Though Rule 3 is not a full merits hearing, it is more than a formality – it assesses whether there is a point of law with a real prospect of success.
Why It Matters
This appeal is far from speculative. It challenges decisions that go to the heart of fair participation in proceedings – the tribunal’s duty to give reasons and its obligation to accommodate a disabled litigant.
Although the EAT documentation does not name counsel, public record shows Wendy Miller KC represents Cepac Ltd here and has acted for Cummins Ltd in related proceedings up to the 3(10) appeal stage. I cannot confirm if she remains instructed for any future Cummins appeal beyond its current stage, but her dual involvement highlights recurring strategic patterns in defending corporate clients. This raises questions on consistency of approach when reputational management seems to override accountability.
Cepac has applied for a public hearing, invoking the principle of open justice – the norm that hearings and related documents should be publicly accessible unless there is a strong reason otherwise judiciary.uk. Their own stance on publicity reinforces my right to report these procedural developments.
Next Steps
The EAT will now carry out a deeper review under Rule 3. If it does not allow the appeal on paper, I can request a Rule 3(10) hearing to argue orally that the appeal should proceed, or it may go straight to a full hearing on the merits. A stay of the underlying Employment Tribunal timetable has also been requested to avoid prejudice while the appeal is under consideration.
Broader Implications
This appeal underscores the need for tribunals to ensure disabled litigants can participate fully – a principle central to TCAP’s mission. It also illustrates how legal representation may follow similar defensive patterns across separate cases, raising accountability questions not only for corporate respondents but for the legal ecosystem that serves them.
Further developments will be reported in due course.
Lee Thompson
Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project
Disclaimer: This update reflects my perspective as a litigant and is based on public records and my legal submissions, and my interpretation of the situation as it stands. It raises awareness of disability rights and procedural fairness. It also responds to the respondent’s own public‑hearing applications, which underscore the broader accountability issues at stake. If you believe any part requires correction, please email admin@tcap.blog.