header-logo header-logo

Back to basics

02 April 2015 / Ryan Clement
Issue: 7647 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Chapman v Simon is alive and kicking after 20 years, says Ryan Clement

As advocates in court, as well as in the employment tribunal, it is important to remain focused on what is being alleged by the claimant(s), what has been agreed as being the issues in the case (preferably from the outset of the hearing) and what evidence is needed in law to prove a case. In the heat of an adversarial exchange there is the temptation either to seek to prove or to disprove everything that is raised in witness statements/oral evidence irrespective of their relevance to the issues on which the tribunal has to decide. And, unfortunately, it is just not the advocates. We have seen cases where tribunals themselves have wrongly and/or mistakenly awarded claimants remedies in cases based on findings that were not in fact relevant to the complaint brought or pleaded.

Chapman v Simon

The Court of Appeal authority of Chapman and another (appellants) v Simon (respondent) [1994] IRLR 124 is still alive and kicking after 20 years. In

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll