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
  • 09 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

The Arbitration Act 2025 – Factsheet

This factsheet outlines the major reforms and key developments introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025, including updates on summary disposal, jurisdictional challenges, emergency arbitrators, arbitrator disclosure duties, and governing law in arbitration proceedings.

art
  • 09 July 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks are changing from 1 October 2026: Is your business ready?

The Home Office’s new rules, effective 1 October 2026, will overhaul right to work checks and raise the risk of civil penalties for UK businesses.

art
  • 08 July 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

ICO prosecutes employee under the Data Protection Act for forwarding client data to his personal email address

The issue of employees taking confidential business information or personal data when moving to a new employer remains a significant concern for businesses.

Pub
  • 07 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Accelerating arbitration: Expedited procedures and key changes in the new ICC Rules – Episode 2

In episode 2, Jack Hobbs (Clarkslegal) and Christopher Howitt (Three Stone) explore how the latest expedited and highly expedited procedures under the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 are transforming the landscape of dispute resolution.

art
  • 07 July 2026
  • Employment

6 month unfair dismissal rights: What employers need to know

Under the new Employment Rights Act 2025 the minimum period of service required to qualify to bring a statutory claim for unfair dismissal has been reduced from 2 full years to 6 months from 1 January 2027 onwards.  

art
  • 02 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Litigation and Artificial Intelligence: Where are we now?

In the recent case of Cork and another v Smith, the High Court publicly admonished a law firm and two of its solicitors after they had produced and submitted two AI-generated letters to the court containing misleading and false information in relation to a block transfer application made under Rule 12.37 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.