Varnish case could run past January
Fall-out from former sprinter’s tribunal could cause funding shake-up, reports Vern Pitt
Jess Varnish’s landmark legal case against British Cycling could rumble on past the judgement in January, Cycling Weekly can reveal. Following a week of hearings at the Manchester employment tribunal last week, a judgement on whether Varnish was effectively an employee of British Cycling or UK Sport, and therefore subject to a raft of employment protections, is due in mid-january. However, Varnish’s lawyer Simon Fenton, partner at Constantine Law, has told CW that the case could well go on beyond that.
When asked if he felt both sides would have the appetite to appeal if the decision went against them, he said: “Yes, I think so. Of course, whether you appeal will be dependent on the decision and what it says. And the judge made it very clear that she was intensely aware of the eminence and expertise of the barristers before her and the wording of her decision will be closely scrutinised.”
However, he also pointed out that 80 per cent of appeals that are lodged are sifted out and never heard, meaning even if they feel there is grounds for appeal it may not happen.
If Varnish is successful in gaining employment status then it will have major repercussions for how athletes are funded across a range of sports, including cycling, giving them rights but also potentially meaning they will have to pay more tax. But BC and UK Sport argue she was never an employee and her claim is about “self-interest”.
BC’S barrister Thomas Linden QC, said: “For good or ill, we have presented the facts — I am not sure I am able to say the same of the claimant.”
Last week, eight-month pregnant Varnish underwent five hours of intensive cross examination and British Cycling head coach Iain Dyer, and Andy Harrison, programmes director, gave evidence for British Cycling.
Fenton felt his client had held up well under questioning. “You don’t get to be on the Olympic podium programme unless you are tough,” he said.
He added that he didn’t feel former British Cycling doctor Richard Freeman’s decision not to appear on the advice of his lawyers (he is due to appear in a General Medical Council hearing for a separate matter in January) had significantly undermined Varnish’s case.