This is the classic 'illustration': a murder takes place. The forensics team identify hair from the crime scene. A DNA test is carried out, indicating that someone with a previous conviction who lives in the same town is a match.
In employment investigations, a similar fallacy occurs when an investigator assumes that because an event could have happened a certain way, it must have happened that way, ignoring other probabilities.
Alex acts in disputes like this one for claimants and respondents, instructed by solicitors or by direct access. How to instruct him or email the clerks.
Related articles
The Dispute Is Not the Answer: Interim Relief After Duffy
A tribunal which refuses interim relief because the facts are disputed has identified the problem rather than answered i...
The Checklist Gap: Clifton Diocese v Parker and the Burden of Proof in Belief Discrimination
HHJ Tayler's judgment in Clifton Diocese v Parker [2026] EAT 68 identifies three recurring errors in how tribunals apply...
Amendments and Time Limits: To Defer or Not to Defer?
Exploring the tension between Amey, Galilee, and Douglas on whether Employment Tribunals must determine time limits at t...