Case 2200163/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sabrina Tomassetti v Liquidity Services UK Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200163/2019
- Decision date
- 4 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hildebrand
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sabrina Tomassetti
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Hildebrand sitting alone to decide whether Ms Sabrina Tomassetti was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during her employment with Liquidity Services UK Ltd. The claimant relied on a mental impairment said to be post-traumatic stress disorder arising from the 2005 London bombing incident, with symptoms described as claustrophobia, agoraphobia, panic and anxiety attacks.
The tribunal reviewed oral evidence and extensive medical records. It accepted that the papers contained references over time to panic, agoraphobia, claustrophobia and anxiety, but found no clear medical record diagnosing PTSD. The judge considered that the documents were dominated by musculoskeletal issues and that the material relating to the asserted mental impairment was limited, with the strongest item being a 2007 discharge letter from a clinical psychologist referring to panic disorder and agoraphobia rather than PTSD.
On the evidence, the tribunal found that the claimant had not established the impairment relied on with sufficient clarity, and in any event had not shown a substantial adverse effect on normal day to day activities during the relevant period. The judge observed that avoiding crowded situations, travelling off-peak on the Tube, and not flying long haul did not amount to substantial impairment on the evidence before the tribunal. The tribunal also noted that much of the more detailed medical evidence post-dated the employment and that some of the claimant’s symptoms could not be separated from reactions to later adverse circumstances.
The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the time she was employed by the respondent. As the only claim was disability discrimination, it was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing on whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of employment. The tribunal held she was not disabled, so the disability discrimination claim could not continue. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- s.212 Equality Act 2010
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- J v DLA Piper
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.