Case 3309104/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Thery Tabase Leyata v St Andrew’s Healthcare — 2026
- Case reference
- 3309104/2024
- Decision date
- 5 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Thery Tabase Leyata
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the Claimant's complaints of harassment related to race under Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Rule 38(1)(a), because they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. Although it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, the claim was not presented within a further reasonable period.
The tribunal found that the Equality Act 2010 victimisation complaints were not presented within the applicable time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend the time limit by 1 day. Those complaints were therefore allowed to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that complaints of harassment related to race were struck out under Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Rule 38(1)(a), because they had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the Equality Act 2010 victimisation complaints were out of time, but that it was just and equitable to extend time by 1 day, so the complaints would proceed. This is not a final liability outcome. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Rule 38(1)(a)
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.