Dominic Chappell’s Cynical Attempt to Shift Blame in BHS Collapse Investigation
- Former BHS owner Dominic Chappell warned against rewriting history in court appeal
- Chappell found guilty of neglecting to provide information and documents to The Pensions Regulator in January
- Appeal hearing began at Hove Crown Court on 17 September
- Barrister Alex Stein claims Chappell made a cynical attempt to muddy the water
- Chappell claimed illness and travel as reasons for not providing documents
- No medical evidence or travel logs to support his claim
- Trial expected to conclude on Friday, unclear if Chappell will give evidence
- BHS collapsed in 2015 with a £571m pension deficit
Dominic Chappell, the former owner of retailer BHS, is facing criticism for attempting to rewrite history during an appeal hearing against his conviction from earlier this year. In January, he was found guilty of neglecting or refusing to provide information and documents without a reasonable excuse to The Pensions Regulator (TPR) as part of its investigation into the sale and collapse of BHS. The appeal began at Hove Crown Court on 17 September, with barrister Alex Stein arguing that proceedings should not be ‘hijacked’ and Chappell should provide a ‘reasonable excuse’ for his failure to supply necessary documents. Stein claimed Chappell’s attempts to introduce irrelevant material were nothing more than an attempt to rewrite history. Chappell argued he was ill and traveling during the time of the final section 72 notice, but there was no medical evidence or travel logs to support this claim. Michael Levy, Chappell’s defense lawyer, stated that notices had been responded to. The trial is expected to conclude on Friday, with uncertainty over whether Chappell will testify. BHS collapsed in 2015 after being acquired by Chappell for £1, leaving a £571m pension deficit.
Factuality Level: 8
Factuality Justification: The article provides accurate and objective information about the appeal hearing, Dominic Chappell’s conviction, and the background of BHS. It does not contain digressions or irrelevant details, sensationalism, redundancy, personal perspective presented as a fact, invalid arguments, logical errors, inconsistencies, or faulty reasoning.
Noise Level: 2
Noise Justification: The article provides relevant information about the appeal hearing and the charges against Dominic Chappell. It does not contain irrelevant or misleading information, nor does it reinforce popular narratives without questioning them. The article stays on topic and supports its claims with evidence from the court proceedings. However, it could provide more actionable insights or new knowledge for readers.
Financial Relevance: Yes
Financial Markets Impacted: BHS and related companies
Financial Rating Justification: The article discusses the financial consequences of BHS’s collapse, including a pension deficit and legal proceedings against its former owner Dominic Chappell.
Presence Of Extreme Event: No
Nature Of Extreme Event: Other
Impact Rating Of The Extreme Event: No
Extreme Rating Justification: There is no extreme event mentioned in the text.
www.retailsector.co.uk