Search

How can we help?

Icon

You can’t defend an equal pay claim with assumptions and assertions

In a judgment released today, Samira Ahmed has won her equal pay claim against the BBC. Her fee for presenting Newswatch was more than six times lower than Jeremy Vine’s fee for presenting Points Of View.

The BBC tried to rely on the fact that Points Of View has a light-hearted tone and requires a certain “glint in the eye” but the tribunal raised more than an eyebrow at this, asking: “How does one acquire such a skill?” It noted that both presenters read scripts from an autocue and found that Jeremy Vine read the script “in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes, he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that.”

The BBC did not appear to put forward any factual case as to why Points of View presenters should be paid more, other than referring to it being long-standing and having had high-profile presenters in the past. On the facts, during Samira Ahmed’s tenure the viewing figures for Newswatch overtook the figures for Points Of View.

The employment tribunal found that the work of presenting the two programmes is the same or broadly similar and that any differences that exist are not of practical importance, meaning that it is “like work” as defined in equal pay law.

Samira Ahmed has won her equal pay claim against the BBC.

If a man and woman are doing like work and are not being paid equally, it is for the employer to prove that the reason for the difference in pay is not due to the difference in gender.

The BBC did not persuade the tribunal that it had even put its mind to the reason why Jeremy Vine was paid £3,000 per episode. The BBC will now have to pay Samira Ahmed the shortfall in pay for 2012 to 2018, which will amount to a six-figure sum.

While the BBC may well appeal, it is important to understand that appeals do not rehear the witness evidence or make fresh findings of fact, unless the original findings of fact were perverse.

The lesson from this case is that making pay decisions without scrutiny or an objective basis is highly risky. For advice and guidance in this area, please contact our employment team.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 08 January 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Data Protection Audits: Launch Event

Join us for a breakfast networking session on Thursday 26th February 2026 as we officially launch our Data Protection Audit services.

art
  • 08 January 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Data Protection – what’s happened in 2025?

2025 has been a lively year for the data protection sphere, with the main talking point coming from the UK’s data reform Bill finally receiving Royal Assent on 19 June 2025.

art
  • 07 January 2026
  • Commercial Real Estate

Real Estate: update and 2026 expectations

The previous year has been an eventful one for the commercial property sector.

art
  • 06 January 2026
  • Commercial Real Estate

FAQ – Buying a commercial property in England and Wales

If you want to invest in the commercial property market in England and Wales (the two countries share the same jurisdiction), it is important to understand that the process differs significantly from buying a property in France.

art
  • 05 January 2026
  • Immigration

UK Immigration changes in 2025: What to expect in 2026

This wrap-up brings together the key developments from across the year, highlighting what has changed, what is still evolving, and what organisations should be planning for as we move into 2026.

Pub
  • 01 January 2026
  • Public Procurement

Procurement Challenges under the Procurement Act 2023

Taking prompt advice is essential as unsuccessful bidders have just ten days within which to issue court proceedings if they want to benefit from the automatic suspension provided for in the Regulations, which prevents the contracting authority from awarding the contract to anyone else.