Case 2304652/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L A Swift v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304652/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L A Swift
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered limitation for three harassment allegations. It dismissed the allegation that Henry Laws harassed the claimant on 26 April 2021 in the shunters lobby because the claim was out of time and the Tribunal decided it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
The Tribunal did not dismiss the allegations that Didier Perrine harassed the claimant through messages sent on 4 and 9 February 2021, and that Kevin Murphy harassed the claimant in or around the week of 26 April 2021 by assaulting her. It decided that it was just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time for those allegations, which were left to be considered at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The harassment allegation concerning Henry Laws on 26 April 2021 in the shunters lobby was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was out of time and the Tribunal decided it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The harassment allegations concerning messages from Didier Perrine on 4 and 9 February 2021 and an alleged assault by Kevin Murphy in or around the week of 26 April 2021 were not dismissed at this preliminary stage; the Tribunal extended time and directed that they be considered at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.