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.
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...