Can the BBC recover salary from Mr Huw Edwards: An employment lawyer’s perspective

The BBC's recent announcement of its intention to recover salary paid to former broadcaster, Mr Huw Edwards, during the period between his arrest and resignation has sparked widespread discussion and debate.

This article explores the BBC's prospects of recovering this money from Mr Edwards and considers some key principles governing the recovery of wages paid to employees.

Background and Context

In November 2023, the BBC was informed that Mr Edwards had been arrested, but they continued to employ him until he resigned in April 2024 on medical advice. During that period, he received his usual pay (based on a reported annual salary of £475,000).

Following formal charges being brought against Mr Edwards, the BBC released a statement confirming that they would “seek the return of salary paid to Mr Edwards from the time he was arrested”.

Why is the BBC Seeking to Recover Salary?

As a public broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to uphold certain standards of conduct and has expressed concern regarding Mr Edwards’ (alleged) actions undermining trust in the BBC and bringing them into disrepute.

The recovery of some or all of Mr Edwards’ substantial salary, paid partly via the public purse, would be seen as a victory for the BBC, which has been heavily criticised in recent years for the salaries provided to their top stars. However, is recovery of wages in such circumstances lawful?

The Law on Recovering Salary

The law governing the recovery of salary paid to employees is complex and can vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case.

In general, employers are not entitled to recover salary which has already been paid to employees unless there is a valid legal ground for doing so. The most common grounds are:

• where the employee has agreed to a deduction being made; or
• where the employer has a contractual right to make the deduction, such as in a contract of employment.

The BBC will not be able to rely on either of these grounds as Mr Edwards was paid salary which he was contractually owed. So are there any other options open to them to recover Mr Edwards’ salary? 

Another potential ground for recovery is where an employee has obtained wages by fraud or misrepresentation, for example where an employee has lied about their qualifications or experience in order to obtain a job or a higher salary. In such scenarios, the employer may seek restitution based on the worker's unjust enrichment. We have seen this in the recent case of Andrewes v NHS where an individual lied about his qualifications on his CV and was ordered to pay back a sum of money.

Despite commentary from the BBC that had Mr Edwards “been up front when asked by the BBC about his arrest, we would never have continued to pay him public money”, there is no suggestion that he obtained wages by fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, unless the BBC has strong evidence of the same, it could not rely on this method of recovery.

A further option for recovery is by way of set-off. If an employee files a claim against their employer, such as for breach of contract, and there is an outstanding overpayment, the employer may seek to recover the overpayment through a counterclaim or set-off. This is applicable regardless of whether the employee’s claim is brought in a civil court or employment tribunal. However, there is no suggestion at this stage that Mr Edwards is planning to bring a claim against the BBC following his resignation and, therefore, a counterclaim would be out of the question.

In legal terms, it will be difficult for the BBC to recover Mr Edwards’ salary, which may be why commentators are shifting their stance to Mr Edwards having a “moral obligation” to repay the monies. 

As the well-known twitter (now X) commentator Darren Newman has stated “the BBC head says he will look at all options to claw back pay from Huw Edwards. He can look all he likes, that isn’t happening”.

These notes have been prepared for the purpose of articles only. They should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice.