Chester 01244 405555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

Shrewsbury 01743 443 043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Manchester 0844 800 8346

Pall Mall Court
61-67 King Street
Manchester M2 4PD

Send us a message
Our Offices

Channel 4 did not discriminate against John McCririck

18th December, 2013

The recent case of McCririck v Channel 4 Television Corporation ET/2200478/2013 in which it was held that Channel 4 had not directly discriminated against Mr McCririck on the ground of his age, has attracted much media attention due to the high-profile claimant involved.

During his long television career, spanning over 30 years, Mr McCririck had become well known for presenting horse racing on Channel 4, along with appearing on various reality shows, his unique dress sense and controversial presentation style.

Since 2008, Channel 4 gradually decreased Mr McCririck’s presenting days until September 2012 when they received results of a survey which found that Mr McCririck was rather unpopular with the public, in comparison to various other television presenters also included in the survey. Channel 4 then removed Mr McCririck, at the time aged 72, from their broadcast of horse racing. It is notable that they did however, retain Ms Stevenson who was aged 42.

Mr McCririck brought a claim for direct age discrimination, however he could not bring an unfair dismissal claim as he was not an employee of Channel 4.

Under section 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010, direct age discrimination occurs where, because of age, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. There will be no direct age discrimination where A can show that its treatment of B is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (section 13(2), Equality Act 2010). In a discrimination claim, the initial burden of proof rests with the claimant to prove a prima facie case of discrimination which the respondent then has to defend.

In this case, the Tribunal decided that the burden of proof had shifted to Channel 4 as Mr McCririck’s contract was terminated, whilst Ms Stevenson was retained and all of the presenters whose contracts were terminated during the same process were over the age of 50.

The passing of the burden of proof onto Channel 4 did not help Mr McCririck in this case and in dismissing his claim, it was held that Mr McCririck had not been directly discriminated against. The Tribunal could not find that Channel 4 had removed Mr McCririck due to his age and as such moved on to question whether Channel 4’s treatment could be described as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Channel 4 asserted that their aim was to attract a wider audience to horse racing, which was held to be a legitimate aim and it was also held that Channel 4’s actions were a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

For further information and advice in relation to age discrimination, please contact Claire Brook on 01244 405575 or send an email to [email protected].

You might also be interested in...

Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP

15th May, 2018

Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP Law firm with offices in Chester and Shrewsbury appoints Kate Robertson to drive HR strategy for more than 120 staff and to support the company’s growth Chester law firm Aaron & Partners LLP has strengthened its senior leadership team with the appointment of an experienced human resources manager. Kate Robertson... Read More »

When you should NOT pay the bailiff…

24th April, 2018

Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner at Aaron & Partners LLP, shares her experience and the reasons why we should be cautious before paying so-called “bailiffs” over the phone or online without vetting them first. My neighbour has told me that recently he had a CCJ (County Court Judgment) against him. A day or so later, he received a phone call... Read More »

Employee awarded 15 years back-pay

11th April, 2018

Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner comments on the recent case of Mr A M Coletta v Bath Hill Court – Bournemouth Property Management Ltd UKEAT 0200 17 RN To read the Transcript of Proceedings in full please click here “This case highlights an important aspect of the Statute of Limitations which affects a wider field than employment claims. An... Read More »

Contact Us