St Andrew’s Healthcare
Case Summary
The Claimant's complaints of harassment related to race are struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit and is dismissed. The complaints of victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 were not presented within the applicable time limit, but the time limit is extended by 1 day.
Key Issues
- •the Claimant's complaints of harassment related to race are struck out under Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Rule 38 (1)(a) because they have no reasonable prospect of success
- •the complaint of unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was not reasonably practicable to do so, but the claim was not presented within a further reasonable period
- •the complaints of victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 were not presented within the applicable time limit, but it is just and equitable to extend the time limit by 1 day
Claim Types
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
ssment related to race are struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit and
The Claimant's complaints of harassment related to race are struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was n
Decision Text
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Thery Tabase Leyata Respondent: St Andrew’s Healthcare Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal (CVP) On: 5 February 2026 Before: Employment Judge Young Representation Claimant: Mr Andrew Otchie (Counsel) Respondent: Ms Lucy Bairstow (Counsel) JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant’s complaints of harassment related to race are struck out under Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Rule 38 (1)(a) because they have no reasonable prospect of success. 2. The complaint of unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was not reasonably practicable to do so, but the claim was not presented within a further reasonable period. The claim is therefore dismissed. 3. The complaints of victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 were not presented within the applicable time limit, but it is just and equitable to extend the time limit by 1 day. The complaints of victimisation will therefore proceed. Approved by: Employment Judge Young Dated 5 February 2026 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 9 March 2026 ...................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing, or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided, they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Un...
Employer
Case Details
- Case Number
- 3309104/2024
- Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal
- Level
- First instance
- Decision Date
- 05/02/2026
- Published
- 31/03/2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young