Chidzoy v BBC Image

Chidzoy v BBC (2018): EAT Upholds Strike Out Of BBC Reporters Employment Tribunal Claim

In the case of Chidzoy v BBC (2018), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld the decision at first instance to strike out a BBC reporters claim. Cambridge Employment Tribunal held at first instance that ” the Claimant was engaged in discussion about the case and her evidence with [a journalist],” despite being warned not to discuss the case 6 times by the tribunal whilst giving evidence. On that basis, the Claimant’s case was struck out, with the tribunal ruling that “the Claimant has been guilty of unreasonable conduct and this Tribunal considers that it is no longer possible to have a fair Hearing in respect of her claim.” Employment judge Michael Ord added in his Judgment that, “we as a Tribunal do not have the necessary trust in the Claimant who should have well understood that a discussion about her evidence and any aspect of the case, during an adjournment whilst she was still under oath and undergoing cross examination should not have taken place.”

The background to the case, which included a claim of sex discrimination, is set out here.

Chidzoy v BBC (2018): The EAT Ruling

The EAT handed its decision in Chidzoy v BBC (2018) down on the 5th April 2018, and upheld the decision of the employment tribunal at first instance to strike out the Claimant’s claim.

Her Honour Judge Jennifer Eady QC held that “The ET had correctly addressed the four questions identified in Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140 EAT. Adopting an entirely fair process, it had been entitled to make the findings it did as to what had taken place and had permissibly concluded that the Claimant had thereby unreasonably conducted the proceedings. The ET had gone on to consider whether it could still conduct a fair trial of the Claimant’s case but, having concluded that trust had broken down, had correctly concluded it was not. Asking itself whether it was proportionate to strike out the claim, the ET had considered whether there were any alternatives but had concluded there were none. In the circumstances, that was a conclusion that was open to it and the challenge to its decision to strike out the claim…[is] dismissed.”

Posted in General Employment Law, strike out and tagged , .