Case 3302704/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Baugh v IBM United Kingdom Limited Heard in Norwich by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302704/2021
- Decision date
- 30 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Baugh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on limitation only. Mr Baugh had last been employed by IBM United Kingdom Limited as Security Europe Channel Manager from 15 April 2014 until 25 October 2019. He issued claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination on 5 March 2021, after early conciliation on 1 to 3 March 2021. The tribunal recorded that the primary limitation period for both claims expired on 24 January 2020.
The tribunal found that Mr Baugh had a brain tumour and related cognitive difficulties during the relevant period. It accepted evidence from Mr Baugh, his father and his partner, together with medical material, that he had been suffering from a mental impairment from June 2019 through to his seizure on 27 March 2020, and that after surgery in April 2020 he experienced a gradual recovery with continuing memory, fatigue and executive-function difficulties into August 2020. On that evidence, the judge found it was not reasonably practicable for him to give instructions or present the unfair dismissal claim within the primary three-month period.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the claim was issued within such further period as was reasonable after his recovery. For the age discrimination complaint, the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time, having regard to Mr Baugh's health and mental capacity between June 2019 and March 2021. The judgment did not determine the merits of either claim; it only allowed both claims to proceed past the limitation objection.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary time-limit issue only; the tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to be presented in time and that it was issued within such further period as was reasonable. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Preliminary time-limit issue only; the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time for the age discrimination complaint. | Upheld | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend Borough Council
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
- Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Robertson v Bexley Community Services
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire v Caston
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
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.