Gregg Wallace, the long-time co-host of MasterChef, is under investigation following allegations of inappropriate behavior spanning nearly two decades. Complaints from 13 individuals have surfaced, accusing Wallace of making sexually explicit remarks and inappropriate conduct on various TV productions. These include allegations from MasterChef, Eat Well For Less, and other shows. Notable figures, such as former contestants and colleagues, have spoken out, citing uncomfortable encounters, inappropriate jokes, and unprofessional behavior.
The allegations have prompted the BBC to pull its MasterChef Christmas specials and announce an independent workplace culture review. Wallace has denied the claims and stated he needs time away amid the ongoing investigation. Public backlash intensified after Wallace described the complaints as being from “middle-class women of a certain age,” a remark condemned as misogynistic by many, including government officials.
The production company managing MasterChef has engaged legal experts to lead the inquiry, signaling the seriousness of the accusations. Wallace’s future on BBC programs remains uncertain as the investigation unfolds.
Legal Obstacles
So, for a lawyer, the obvious questions are: what obstacles stand in the way of victims, and do they have a case against Wallace or his “employers” the BBC?
- This site is angled towards childhood sexual abuse, which this obviously isn’t, however, in one of the cases there is a suggestion that, as part of a joke, at the expense of a female, he may have touched her bottom. As such, this would technically be an assault at civil law, but perhaps not what the public would term “abuse”.
- The question always is, when does humour end and abuse start? As is often said in employment cases, “context is everything.” Comedians have often been criticised by some sectors of the public who consider that certain subjects are taboo and not available to the comedy circuit. Others, Ricky Gervais included, object and say that no subject is off limits.
- What would be regarded as a joke in a comedy club is regarded as offensive if made by a senior presenter in a position of power to a young female, who becomes the butt of the joke and is embarrassed. “Context is everything.”
- Our attitude toward humour has moved almost 180 degrees since the 1970’s when sexism and racism were tolerated and were often the subject of comedy routines. Much of the legislation on the subject, however, emanates from the 1970’s when Labour governments were in power, e.g., the Race Relations Act 1976.
- Time Delay – or Limitation as we lawyers call it – can be fatal. If a claim is for personal injury, ie, if the allegation is that someone has been psychologically damaged by what happened, then the time limit is 3 years from one’s 18th birthday, i.e., 21 if the act occurred in childhood, or 3 years from the event in adulthood. In one of the reported cases, it allegedly occurred 19 years ago
- What civil wrong has allegedly been committed? If there has been no physical contact, then there has been no assault or trespass. In the sexting cases, we are thrown back on an old common law allegation founded by the case of Wilkinson v. Downton. The rule states that a person can be liable for causing physical harm (including psychiatric injury) to another if they intentionally perform an act calculated to cause such harm, even if the act is a false statement, and that harm does in fact occur; essentially, it establishes a tort for the intentional infliction of mental distress resulting in physical harm. The question is, of course, whether or not there was any intent to cause physical harm? It would no doubt be argued that there was never any such intent.
- The most difficult area, of course, is whether any psychiatric harm resulted. Nervous shock is not necessarily enough. One has to take one’s victim as one finds them. If they are particularly sensitive, it does not matter. It would be wrong to assume or judge, but I think that it is unlikely that any recognised mental disorder was caused. This does not excuse or normalise anything, but causation has always to be proved.
So, there will be an investigation by Lewis Silkin solicitors, and one must not try to pre-judge the outcome. Undoubtedly, the public nature of the allegations will affect Gregg Wallace’s career, which is punishment in itself. He is what the industry term “talent”, and is self-employed. He is not an employee, and is therefore not subject to employment law. Thus there will be no claim against the BBC on the basis of vicarious liability because they were not his employers. What should or should not be the result will thus be governed by his contract. It would seem to me that if the allegations are found to be proved, there is little likelihood of there being any civil claims arising therefrom for all the reasons outlined above.
