Case 1600685/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Young v The Intellectual Property Office — 2017
- Case reference
- 1600685/2016
- Decision date
- 30 March 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Davies
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mr W Horne, Ms C Lovell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Young
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Cardiff, constituted by Employment Judge S Davies with Mr W Horne and Ms C Lovell, heard the case on 6, 7, 8 and 9 March 2017. The claimant was Mr M Young and the respondent was the Intellectual Property Office.
The written judgment records only the unanimous outcome: all claims were dismissed. No written reasons were provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the judgment does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual findings or any monetary award.
On the material available in the judgment, the case included unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims, both of which were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed, but does not distinguish the outcome by claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed, but does not distinguish the outcome by claim type. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.