The Countryfile conundrum

The weekend papers are devoting plenty of space to rumination on a continuing case - the Employment Tribunal involving Miriam O'Reilly and the BBC.  Tribunals are meant to be less formal than other courts, and you're slightly safer expressing opinions ahead of a conclusion.  In reality, the tribunals have evolved much more procedure, attract top barristers, and can be just as terrifying for witnesses (QED in this one) - and the issue of commenting on cases has yet to be tested.

Anyway, here goes. Both sides have "principles" at stake, and both sides, unusually, stand on the verge of a pyrrhic victory.  The BBC needs to be able to choose presenters in the way most performers are chosen - by audition, either in person or looking at previous work. Whether final decisions are based on a grid or not, it doesn't matter - performers understand that's the way the business works, and so do presenters.   However Miriam was working as "a reporter" for most of her time, on programmes that might be regarded as current affairs.   If decisions about her contract were actually made on grounds of age, (which in my view is highly unlikely) then she has a case - a case being handled by solicitor Camilla Palmer, on behalf of Leigh Day & Co.  Camilla is hoping to build on an existing reputation, and get a breakthrough judgement: she says "This is the first case of its kind to reach the Employment Tribunal, despite a number of previous allegations of ageism and sexism in the media’. Her barrister is Heather Williams QC, (speciality "complex/high value Employment Tribunal claims")  assisted by Amanda Hart. Amanda was once General Secretary of the LSE Students' Union, and had to deal with the press when Winston Silcott was elected honorary president in order to highlight miscarriages of justice. Both work from Doughty Street Chambers


In tribunals, whatever the outcome (and this one won't come through until the New Year) costs are born by each party, unless the Tribunal rules that the case is in some way vexatious. Presumably, Leigh Day & Co have assessed what Miriam can afford.  The BBC side, with internal HR and legal teams, plus barristers probably no less expensive, and providing most of the witnesses, has to bear the disruption costs of most of them sitting through ten days in court (plus what looks like some unquantifiable, though probably transient, reputational damage).  The cash costs to licence fee payers will probably amount to more than any settlement which might have interested Miriam, so the BBC is clearly investing in holding on to its "principle".  

The risk is that this case is just not clear cut enough to establish any real principles for either side, or the future, and substantial time and money will have been wasted by both parties.