Allison Bailey Appeal

FYI update on another thread which I thought should be added to this one

“Although the case against Garden Court has now concluded, the litigation against Stonewall continues. My appeal against them is to be heard on 13 and 14 May 2024 at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Ben Cooper KC is again instructed, and I will update you all closer to the hearing on progress.”

So block out 13 & 14 May in diaries.

To me, GCC and their solicitor's behaviour just smacks of school bully mentality, and most people grow out of that eventually.

For example, the petition that the ACE TRA's put together to oust Denise Fahmy.
(The fact that senior management didn't instantly respond, cos they didn't want to upset the TRA's blows my mind every single day).

That's the sort of thing kids do, at school, when they're sick of having fish and chips, on a Friday.
The teachers let them get it out of their system, and then it quietly dies a death, cos they're being entitled arseholes and the teachers indulge them for 5 minutes.

But, to do that to a colleague, and think that conduct is ok?? 🤯

It also made me think of Dr Haddock, basically throwing his career down the toilet because he's another rabid TRA, egged on by even worse examples.
They aren't the people with a great education and a responsible job. They're (usually anonymous) trolls, letting him take the flak. His breathtaking misogyny blinds him to what's actually happening, and as a result, he's suspended by the BMA.

They all get away with it - and I'm including the dopey Stonewall employee who needed their mum and support dog, and Allison's GCC colleagues who had the nerve to solicit the complaints.

They thought they'd bully Allison into submission. They were wrong, and they me sick.

I apologise for rambling, but I'm angry.

That sounds like the sort of mentality Scientologists have.

They're not allowed to think too carefully about all the bullshit they're fed, and if they do, then they're forking over hundreds of pounds to re-educate themselves.

Either way, they're both dangerous cults.

Ha ha ha!!!

Oh wow

@BellaAmorosa "I wonder if the Chambers' attitude toward Allison spilled over into its preparation of the bundle? Simply couldn't be arsed to engage properly?"

Yeah, I agree this feels like part of it I also think the sort of reality denial and faith based thinking demanded too much of people to actually do their job. Like you're not allowed to think about certain things for fear the faith collapses. Someone called it self censorship the other day, you don't let yourself think certain things. Were people who would normally read thoroughly with their 'legal' hat on just not prepared to engage with the bundle, / case.

Hard to see how they'd have still been fighting it post WORIADS otherwise.

It's a plausible explanation. Just about. Another plausible explanation might be that they were deliberately trying to increase Alison's costs in the hope that she would back down. Or out of revenge.

A strong ethos for what? Terrible bundles? Facing down their own barristers in court? Making a laughing stock of themselves?

Oh my! They look such fools 😂

Oh my. First comment; Horse. Bolted
🤣

Just saw this. Comments are great -

twitter.com/gardencourtlaw/status/1677365610790150145?s=20

It makes total sense to me. And I agree. Condescension and arrogance ran through their conduct throughout. The sense of considering themselves too important and having have far more important things to do with their incredibly valuable time to give the case proper attention.

I wonder if the Chambers' attitude toward Allison spilled over into its preparation of the bundle? Simply couldn't be arsed to engage properly?

I don't know how else to explain this level of incompetence from a 'leading' set of barristers (and their clerks), except to add in some sort of psychological element permeating the Chambers.

If that makes sense?

If the solicitors were at fault, I'd expect Garden Court to demand compensation for their very substantial financial loss (their wasted costs as well as the tribunal's costs award). But perhaps they won't demand compensation. Oh to be a fly on that wall.

I agree that it's strange. The people involved with this at Garden Court were very experienced and respected barristers, who have worked with bundles on a daily basis for decades. They would have recognised a badly-prepared bundle from 10 miles away.

I'm not sure what's foremost in the qualities that Garden Court Chambers has demonstrated here--is it malice, or incompetence? A good mixture of the two, anyway.

Imagine hiring them for any kind of legal business. I'll look elsewhere, thanks.

This phrase in Allison's statement is a typo, isn't it - should be the other way round.
"the legal costs I have had to incur are less than the amount that I have received."
Anyone know how to contact her so she can correct it? Understandably she doesn't have contact details on her webpage...

Someone needs to change their username to SubstantiallyImperfectBundle.

With GCC, it does seem like a logic fail to have dragged this out again. The only thing I can think of is that their solicitors come out of this specific part worse than they do. The main detriment to their reputation was in the way they treated Allison, which is all out there already. Perhaps they thought that wasn't going to get any worse so they might as well try and mitigate the financial losses.

I wonder as well if there was anything going on behind the scenes with them and their solicitors. Bet you any money GCC won't be using them again anyway!

Thanks, Penguin

General astonishment GCC continued pushing it on costs. They got such bad publicity then, and this has just aired it all again.
Solicitors were TMP solicitors IIRC. Partner there should be wincing at this coverage.

Bet old Robin "Somatically Female" Random-Bundles was popular at work when that judgement came out 😈

But still, having deeper pockets to allow a "win" is all day wrong. And yes, she has got the maximum possible, even though it's nowhere near enough.

And Spamtorrow could do with a trip to Planet Earth!

@chilling19 "It’s not enough simply to have won your case: costs awards are only made against a party which has behaved vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or where they have pursued a case that had no reasonable prospects of success. "

wow, I would have been nice had they had to pay the lot but I recall experts at the tie telling us that wouldn't be on the cards and to get anything at all would be unlikely. They awarded her the maximum that they could.

@SinnerBoy yeah ikwym but I'd say that the costs were far from typical

Could have been worse, at least it doesn’t misspell “man” with a “wo” at the beginning.