Claim Struck Out After Claimant Discussed Case with Journalist Whilst Under Oath
In Chidzoy v BBC, the Claimant appealed a decision of the Tribunal that her claim against the BBC should be struck out on the basis that she had discussed the case with a journalist whilst under oath.
The Claimant was employed by the BBC for 29 years. She brought claims against the BBC for whistleblowing, sex discrimination, victimisation and harassment. The case was listed for an 11 day hearing during which the Claimant gave evidence over a number of days. She was reminded on multiple occasions that she should not discuss her evidence whilst under oath.
Following a break in giving evidence, counsel for the BBC reported that the Claimant had been witnessed discussing her evidence with a journalist for the Eastern Daily Press. After inviting submissions from the parties, the Tribunal struck out the claim on the basis of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct, which led to a breakdown in trust in her as a witness. The Tribunal considered that the breakdown in trust meant that a fair trial was no longer possible even before a differently constituted Tribunal, so that it was proportionate to strike out the claim. On appeal from the Claimant, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision to strike out the claim.
Best Practice
This case provides a salutary reminder to witnesses as to the importance of giving evidence under oath at Tribunal, particularly where cases are heard over a period of several days. This case demonstrates the potential consequences where a witness acts in a way that causes the Tribunal to question their integrity such that it can no longer trust in their evidence.