Chapman v Simon: CA 1994

The court considered the approach where a party sought to raise on appeal a complaint not made in the case presented to the tribunal.
Held: An Employment Tribunal must decide the issues which are put before it and should not decide issues which are not. It is not entitled to conduct a general review of an employment history of an individual so as to assess the possibility of other claims.
Balcombe LJ said: ‘This was not a matter of which Ms Simon had ever complained. I have already set out the terms of Ms Simon’s originating application, which gives every indication of having been prepared with professional assistance, and the way in which Mr Munasinghe framed his statement of the first incident. Sections 54 and 56 of the 1976 Act make it clear that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is limited to complaints which have been made to it; no complaint was ever made by Ms Simon relating to the matters which the majority in paragraph 9 found to have constituted racial discrimination’
Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘Under s. 54 of the Act, the complainant is entitled to complain to the Tribunal that a person has committed an unlawful act of discrimination, but it is the act of which complaint is made and no other that the Tribunal must consider and rule upon. If it finds that the complaint is well founded, the remedies which it can give the complainant under s. 56(1) are specifically directed to the act to which the complaint relates. If the Act of which complaint is made is found to be not proven, it is not for the Tribunal to find another act of racial discrimination of which complaint has not been made to give a remedy in respect of that other act.’

Balcombe LJ, Peter Gibson LJ
[1994] IRLR 124
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSouthern Cross Healthcare Co Ltd v Perkins and Others EAT 21-Apr-2010
Written Particulars
The employment tribunal can reformulate the juridical basis of a complaint so long as the facts upon which the complaint is based remain the same and . .
CitedFoster v Bon Groundwork Ltd EAT 17-Mar-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by . .
CitedCumbria Probation Board v Collingwood EAT 28-May-2008
Disability / Disability related discrimination / Reasonable adjustments
>2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The date of disability is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.408660