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

art
  • 22 December 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Corporate law in 2025 and looking forward to 2026

2025 has been a transformative year, with a massive paradigm shift from ‘deregulation’ to ‘transparency and accountability’ at Companies House.

Pub
  • 22 December 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Data Protection Audits: Launch Event

Join us for a breakfast networking session on Thursday 5th February 2026 as we officially launch our Data Protection Audit services.

Pub
  • 22 December 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

GDPR Packages

Our comprehensive GDPR Packages are designed to help organisations navigate the complexities of data protection and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

art
  • 18 December 2025
  • Employment

Employment Law: Looking back at 2025 and what to expect in 2026

2025 has certainly been an interesting year for employment law. While the Employment Rights Bill has pulled much of the focus since it was introduced in October 2024, there have been other important updates this year as well.

art
  • 18 December 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Deal Announcement: Clarkslegal’s corporate lawyers advise on the sale of Chatterbox Labs Limited to subsidiary of American tech giant

Clarkslegal’s corporate team, led by Senior Consultant Jon Chapman and supported by Senior Solicitor Emma Docking, advised the founders of Chatterbox Labs Limited on the sale of the AI security specialist to Red Hat, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of IBM.

art
  • 16 December 2025
  • Employment

Christmas Parties – Festive Fun or a New Year Hangover?

It’s Christmas party season! The office party is often a mixed blessing – an opportunity to boost morale and perhaps celebrate a successful year yet also a melting pot of workers letting their hair down, with potential for accidents, injuries, threats and claims.