Case 4104310/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dejan Karadaglic v Represented by:10 Mr P Ward - Counsel Glasgow Caledonian University — 2023
- Case reference
- 4104310/2023
- Decision date
- 23 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dejan Karadaglic
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr Dejan Karadaglic met the definition of disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. He relied on vertigo, type 2 diabetes, claustrophobia, depression/mental impairment, hypertension, dyslexia, and cumulative effect. The tribunal accepted that vertigo was an impairment and found that, when attacks occurred, it caused problems with balance while walking, prevented him from driving, and prevented him from travelling on the underground. It held that travelling by bus was a reasonable coping strategy only in relation to underground travel, not for walking or driving.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that Mr Karadaglic was a disabled person for the relevant period by reason of vertigo. The reasons refer to the relevant period as 17 January to 13 March 2023 at paragraph 3 and later as 17 January to 23 March 2023 at paragraph 65. The tribunal rejected the other pleaded bases for disability status, including stress/anxiety/depression, dyslexia, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 Guidance paras B4, B7, B12, C2, C9
- McNicol v Balfour Beatty
- Ahmed v Metroline Travel Ltd
- Swift v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary
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.