The Appellant claimed that the Respondents had discriminated against her on the ground of her disability, namely diplopia, although there had been some discussion whether other disabilities – including facial disfigurement, and anxiety and depression – were part of her case. The Appellant chose to base her case on diplopia, and then argued that the ET had taken an excessively narrow view of her case. The key issue on appeal was whether the ET had correctly interpreted para 5(1) and (3) of Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010, in considering that the Appellant's impairment was "correctable by spectacles or contact lenses".

The EAT held that the ET was only required to deal with the question of whether the diplopia was a disability, and was not required to consider whether the cosmetic issue and the anxiety were disabilities. Accordingly, the ET decision was upheld and the appeal refused.