Case 3312419/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Young, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3312419/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Members
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Ms M Harris, Mr B Smith
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr W Young, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a College Teaching Officer, applied for an Assistant Professor post in Twentieth-Century German History in the University of Cambridge's Faculty of History. He alleged indirect age discrimination, relying on an alleged provision, criterion or practice of preferring not to recruit College Teaching Officers to permanent Grade 9 University Teaching Officer positions.
The tribunal found that the University did not apply the alleged PCP at the material times and that it was not applied to the claimant in the recruitment exercise. It considered that the committee's deliberations concerned the candidates' academic credentials and trajectories, and that any concern about appointing internal candidates did not establish the pleaded CTO-specific PCP.
The tribunal therefore did not need to decide whether candidates aged 42 and older were put at a particular disadvantage, whether the claimant was put at that disadvantage, or whether the claimant was an employee of the University. The indirect age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the claim that the respondent indirectly discriminated against the claimant by applying an age discriminatory PCP in recruitment to permanent Grade 9 University Teaching Officer positions. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 39(1)(a) and 83(2) Equality Act 2010
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.