British Broadcasting Corporation, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee

British Broadcasting Corporation, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee

The panel erred in law by imposing a requirement that professional activity must be regulated by a supervisory body, which is not mandated by statute. The decision is tainted and must be quashed.

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 / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; panel's decision quashed; matter remitted to a different CAC panel.
Legal Topics
Definition of Worker, Collective Bargaining, Statutory Recognition, Error of Law, Judicial Review, Professional Status
Employment Law Labour Relations 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether wildlife cameramen/women are 'workers' under section 296(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
  2. 2 Whether the Central Arbitration Committee erred in law by imposing a regulatory body requirement for professional status
  3. 3 Whether individuals on the BBC contact list 'seek to work' within the statutory meaning

Ratio Decidendi

The panel erred in law by imposing a requirement that professional activity must be regulated by a supervisory body, which is not mandated by statute. The decision is tainted and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; panel's decision quashed; matter remitted to a different CAC panel.

Orders

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