Case 8000180/2022 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000180/2022 Preliminary Hearing (Hybrid) at Glasgow on September 2023 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Alessia Potalivo v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000180/2022
- Decision date
- 17 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eccles
Parties
1 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000180/2022 Preliminary Hearing (Hybrid) at Glasgow on September 2023 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Alessia Potalivo
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 26 September 2023, Employment Judge M A Macleod proceeded in the claimant's absence after she did not attend and the tribunal decided it was in the interests of justice to hear the issue on the papers. The issue determined was whether Alessia Potalivo was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 for the purposes of her disability discrimination claim. The respondent's separate expenses application was not determined at that hearing.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had longstanding eyesight problems and that she relied on strong myopia, a detached vitreous gel and a large floater in her right eye, together with difficulties reading small print and computer screens. It considered her disability impact statement, GP letters from 2014 and 2015, and optician records from 2021 to 2023, as well as her evidence that the condition caused headaches, tiredness, anxiety, depression and insomnia. The tribunal also applied the Statutory Code of Practice guidance that the effects of spectacles or contact lenses should be considered.
The tribunal found that the claimant did have a physical impairment and that it was long term, but it was not proved to have a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It noted that the medical evidence was limited, that the GP records described the visual problems as minor, and that the optician records did not show evidence of a specialist referral or surgery being required. The tribunal concluded that the claimant's visual impairment did not meet the statutory definition of disability and dismissed the disability discrimination claim.
No monetary award was made. The tribunal referred the respondent's expenses application back to the case-managing Employment Judge and did not issue further case management orders at that stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing on whether the claimant met the definition of disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal held she had not proved a disability and dismissed the disability discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Statutory Code of Practice for Employment paragraph 17
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.