British Broadcasting Corporation, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee [2003] EWHC 1375 (Admin) (06 April 2003)

British Broadcasting Corporation, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee [2003] EWHC 1375 (Admin) (06 April 2003)

The CAC panel erred in law by treating the existence of regulation by a professional body as an essential requirement for exclusion from 'worker' status as a professional. The statutory definition does not mandate such a requirement; it is only one relevant factor among others. The decision was tainted by this error and must be quashed.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1375 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: British Broadcasting Corporation; Defendant: Central Arbitration Committee; Interested Party: Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union (BECTU)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing; Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; CAC decision quashed; matter remitted to a different panel for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Definition of Worker, Collective Bargaining, Statutory Recognition, Error of Law, Judicial Review, Professional Status
Employment Law Labour Law Administrative Law Definition of Worker Collective Bargaining Statutory Recognition Error of Law Judicial Review +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Broadcasting Corporation

Claimant

Central Arbitration Committee

Defendant

Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union (BECTU)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing; Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Central Arbitration Committee erred in law in its definition of 'worker' under section 296(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
  2. 2 Whether the requirement for regulation by a professional body is necessary to exclude a group from 'worker' status as professionals
  3. 3 Whether the CAC lawfully adopted a group approach to evidence and the definition of 'seeking to work'

Ratio Decidendi

The CAC panel erred in law by treating the existence of regulation by a professional body as an essential requirement for exclusion from 'worker' status as a professional. The statutory definition does not mandate such a requirement; it is only one relevant factor among others. The decision was tainted by this error and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; CAC decision quashed; matter remitted to a different panel for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Decision of the CAC panel quashed.
  • Matter to be reconsidered by a different CAC panel.