Gregg Wallace, the familiar face of BBC’s MasterChef for nearly two decades, has found himself at the center of a legal storm after his dismissal from the hit show in July 2025. On October 10, Wallace filed a High Court lawsuit against the BBC and its commercial arm, BBC Studios Distribution Limited, seeking up to £10,000 in damages for what he describes as "distress and harassment" caused by the broadcaster’s handling of his personal data and the circumstances surrounding his firing.
The legal action, which has been confirmed by multiple outlets including Deadline, Press Association (PA), and The Independent, follows a tumultuous period for the 60-year-old presenter. The roots of the dispute stretch back to an independent investigation into Wallace’s conduct on MasterChef, commissioned by production company Banijay UK and carried out by the law firm Lewis Silkin. The report, which spanned a seven-month period, substantiated 45 out of 83 allegations against Wallace—most involving inappropriate sexual language and humor, as well as one incident of unwelcome physical contact. The majority of these incidents occurred between 2005 and 2018, with only a single substantiated complaint after that period.
Wallace’s legal claim centers on the BBC’s response to his subject access requests (SARs) for personal data relating to his employment, contractual relations, and conduct—a request that, by law, should typically be fulfilled within a month. According to court documents seen by PA, Wallace’s barrister, Lawrence Power of Whitestone Chambers, stated that Wallace formally submitted SARs to both the BBC and BBC Studios on March 6, 2025. However, the BBC classified the request as "complex," saying it would need an additional two months to process the data, while BBC Studios promised a response within a month.
Despite these assurances, Wallace claims he received neither a full response nor all of his requested data. On August 7, the BBC sent an email apologizing for the delay and stating they were "taking all reasonable steps" to process the request as quickly as possible. BBC Studios, meanwhile, reportedly withheld portions of his data, citing "freedom of expression" as the reason for redacting certain information. Wallace’s legal team argues that this amounted to an unlawful failure to supply all of his personal data, and that the defendants "acted in breach of their statutory duty and in doing so caused distress and harassment to the claimant."
In his legal filings, Wallace is seeking damages for "distress, harassment and loss of amenity not exceeding £10,000," as well as interest and damages under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). He’s also asking the court to order the BBC and BBC Studios to comply fully with his subject access requests. The BBC and BBC Studios have filed a defense to the claim, but have declined to comment publicly, citing ongoing legal proceedings.
The controversy over Wallace’s dismissal has been further complicated by his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder during the course of the misconduct investigation. According to Deadline and PA, neurodiversity specialists consulted by Wallace suggested that he was "uncertain of social boundaries," a factor that the Lewis Silkin report noted should be taken into account when considering the findings. Wallace himself has argued that he was the victim of disability discrimination, believing that the BBC failed to make reasonable adjustments for his neurodiversity.
The details of the misconduct investigation were damning. The Lewis Silkin report found that "the majority of the substantiated allegations against Mr Wallace related to inappropriate sexual language and humour," while a smaller number involved other inappropriate language and instances of Wallace being in a state of undress in front of colleagues. One incident of unwelcome physical contact was also upheld. The BBC, in a statement issued jointly with Banijay UK in July, said that Wallace’s "behaviour falls below the values of the BBC and the expectations we have for anyone who works with or for us." The corporation also admitted that "opportunities were missed to address this behaviour, both by the production companies running MasterChef and the BBC. We accept more could and should have been done sooner."
Wallace, for his part, has consistently denied the more serious allegations, insisting through his legal team that "it is entirely false that he engages in behaviour of a sexually harassing nature." He has, however, apologized for using inappropriate language between 2005 and 2018, and addressed the incident of unwanted touching by stating, "I challenged the remaining issue of unwanted touching, but have had to accept a difference in perception, and I am deeply sorry for any distress caused. It was never intended." In a statement to PA, Wallace reflected on the toll the ordeal has taken on his family, saying, "For eight months, my family and I have lived under a cloud. Trial by media, fuelled by rumour and clickbait. None of the serious allegations against me were upheld."
Wallace’s legal journey is being led by barrister Lawrence Power, who has emphasized in court documents that the BBC and its subsidiary "wrongly redacted" information and failed to comply with their statutory obligations. Wallace was previously represented by Dan Morrison, a partner at Grosvenor Law, but now relies on Power’s expertise to press his case.
While the BBC has not commented directly on the specifics of the case, its earlier statements acknowledge both the seriousness of the findings and the need for institutional introspection. Wallace’s departure from MasterChef marked the end of a 20-year tenure that saw him become a household name in British television. The fallout from his exit and the subsequent legal wrangling have sparked debates about workplace culture, neurodiversity, and the responsibilities of major broadcasters to both their staff and the public.
As the legal proceedings unfold, questions remain about the boundaries of personal data rights, the complexities of handling neurodiverse employees in high-pressure environments, and the processes by which organizations investigate and address misconduct. For now, Wallace’s case stands as a high-profile test of how these issues intersect in the world of modern broadcasting, with both reputations and institutional practices under the microscope.
The outcome of Wallace’s lawsuit—and the broader reckoning it prompts—will be closely watched by media professionals, disability advocates, and viewers alike. For Wallace, the pursuit of damages is about more than money; it’s a bid for vindication and a demand for accountability from one of Britain’s most prominent media institutions.
