header-logo header-logo

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

Back to basics

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll