Christopher Davies, professional support lawyer, Halliwells

Lee and Michael were project leaders this week in the supercar rental task. Both teams had to choose from a variety of supercars.

The two they thought would enable them to make the most money from selling rental time. First choice for both showed them choosing at the lower end of this exclusive high value fleet – Michael gets the red Ferrari, and Lee the Aston Martin; both fetch around £67 per hour or £600 a day.

However for their second car Michael chose a Spiker Spyder with a rental value of £1200 a day and Lee gambles on the most expensive car available, the Pagani Zonda which rents at a staggering £2750 per day. 

Again just as in week eight's wedding dress task, the success went to the team that gambled on the high end merchandise that brought in the greater returns. Lee, Alex and Lucinda were safe and Michael, Helene and Claire were left to face the boardroom.

The boardroom interview this week had Sir Alan focussing on Michael’s failures and Helene’s ineffectiveness. It looked as if both were in danger of being fired.

While Sir Alan seemed to accept that Michael was really to blame for the loss he appeared to take as relevant factors his age and relative inexperience. While Helene he regarded as older and more set in her ways, she therefore would find it more difficult to adapt to his company and the way that they work.

Good job that this is just a show as that line of thinking in an actual job interview could land an employer in an Employment Tribunal for age discrimination. Forgiving one candidate for being a ‘disaster zone’ on the grounds that they are ‘very young’ did appear unfair to Helene who pointed out that just because he was younger should not give him more of a right to stay. Sir Alan agreed and Michael was finally fired from the series.

Typically in the real world interview questions and comments can give grounds for discrimination complaints and care should always be taken that the interviewer is not prejudging someone’s enthusiasm or capability just on the grounds of their age.

In one recent case an Employment Tribunal drew an inference of discrimination when the 58 year old candidate was asked: “how can you convince me that you still have the drive and motivation to be successful in this position? Are you still hungry enough to succeed?’ The Tribunal considered that a younger candidate would not have been asked that question and therefore found he had been discriminated against.