Allison Bailey Appeal

IANAL but I am sure there is case law relating to costs. I have a recollection that you can charge for thinking time.

My guess is that a costs decision is inexorably linked to the circumstances of the case which it follows.
But I'd love to know if a similar case with similar circumstances could expect to cite preceeding cases, could they also cite preceeding cost decisions during the costs phase.

First-tier ETs don't form legal precedent at all, only at appeal stage. That's why Maya's case was so vital - it was at appeal that GC beliefs were judged to be WORIADS.

Excellent question, @lechiffre55
I would love to know, too.

I have a legal question for anyone qualified please.
Can a costs decision ( on it's own ) form a legal precident in the same way that a legal judgement can?

IANAL and IANAnETExpert so happy to be corrected but a costs order - considering the legal costs only - in an ET is separate to the basic award and any additional compensatory award to the successful claimant. It's comparatively unusual for costs to be awarded in ETs.

Losing businesses have to pay any basic award, which in simplistic terms is calculated similar to redundancy pay would be based on length of service etc, up to certain maximums (although awards in discrimination and whistleblowing cases can be unlimited), plus any compensatory award the panel deems appropriate which may take into account things like loss of future earnings, loss of pension rights etc. They also have to face any reputational damage losing the case may bring in their industry/sector or among the wider public.

Only rarely would they also be at risk of paying some or all of the claimant's legal costs, which is the part of Allison's case under consideration today.

That's about the size of it, which is complete bullshit.

I'd be mortified if were Jacqui McGuigan about now.

Like Allison was such an annoyance to the lofty 'Do Right. Fear No One' Chambers - so they could be as disrespectful as they liked.

They didn't think she was strong enough to fight back.
They were wrong.

And also, would JR have mentioned that Peter Daly was preparing for Maya's case if it wasn't in the same milieu as Allison's?
If the case was Ms X vs Asda for disability discrimination, would she have brought it up like that, cos I don't think so.

I’m not keeping track of this hearing but Ms Russell seems to be saying it’s all Peter Daly’s fault.

Oh oh oh! What have I missed?

You also get the impression that the bundle problems were deliberately caused, or at least the result of the arrogance with which GCC have conducted themselves throughout.

I'm wondering what the benefit of an Employment Tribunal is at all if the guilty party can get away without significant costs and pretty much carry on as before.

At best they've had reputational damage but that wouldn't be the case for all Employers, depending on the business. What is the punishment for discrimination? Not a lot, seemingly.

Thanks.

No, it’s scheduled for 2 days with the 2nd day for deliberations.

Are they likely to reach a decision today?

I can't believe how much it cost.

Aside from anything else, I’m given to understand Ben is very expensive (but worth every penny if you ask me!)

I should imagine GCC are desperately clutching at straws but the precedent it would set is concerning - it’s effectively means-testing the awarding of costs.

“You won and we would award costs but you are a high earner/had a crowdfunder/are a trust fund kid so we don’t think you need it.”

If nothing else there’s no punitive action against the losing party and therefore no deterrent for others (especially if they have grounds to think their victim will be seen by a Court as too wealthy).

You could theoretically bring a case if you are a union member and they agreed to take on your case - which wasn't an option for Allison of course - as your monthly dues contribute to the union's legal fund, but you wouldn't necessarily have an expensive KC representing you.

I say 'theoretically' because in matters of GC beliefs, most unions are utterly captured...

I can't believe how much it cost.
It's just not possible for any one not super rich to bring a case, surely?

@Mumsnut both sides may have a Cost Draughtsman/ Cost Accountant who will go through the other sides costs with a fine tooth comb to see any that are unreasonable.

The ET can then decide if a cost is reasonable or not. Then they can decide using % to reduce the amount the other side pays.

MS Jane Russell no doubt doesn't ever have to worry about buying her children shoes - I do. I donated to AB's case when my kid needed new shoes and they had to wait longer as a result.

So much for justice for women. Aaargh!

Christ almighty, she'd be a royal pain in the arse to work with.

On the crowdfunder having an effect on costs.
There was a case in the USA a few years back, so probably no relation to UK law.

Person A sued person B over copyright.
Person B had a crowdfunder to raise money for a defense.
Person B won the case "with prejudice".
The type of lawsuit didn't normally award costs to either side. But because the judge had strongly hinted that he didn't think much of the suit in pre trial discussions, and the with prejudice decision, person B applied for costs anyway.
Person A argued that because person B had their costs covered by the crowdfunder already, that it would be some form of double dipping.
The judge awarded person B full costs irrespective of the crowdfunder against A. The judge said the crowdfunder was irrelevant.

Fucks sake, I'm getting very pissed off.

They'd better not skimp on Allison's costs because a load of normal, poorly paid women like me had to crowdfund it - taking money away from providing for our kids. We only did that because we could see how VITAL it is for women's rights (and our daughter's rights) because I certainly couldn't afford to go to court for 750k+ if my employer discriminates against me for my GC beliefs.

Justice is out of reach of ordinary women.

If they don't award full costs it will have a chilling effect because the only way women can bring these cases is to crowdfund - who has a spare 750k sitting around? (other than JKR but even she can't fund it all). Why should those who are ruled to have discriminated (and who are loaded) get off scott free off the backs of normal working women?

And as far as I'm concerned, given the stress AB has been through, I hope she's awarded costs at a minimum. I'd be more than happy for her to spend my donation on private healthcare for the health consequences of the stress she was put under or indeed chocolate / wine.

I cannot imagine the stress and trauma of what she's been through and am very grateful she was willing to stand up and be a hero. But what a cost for doing so - I think she's stopping being a barrister isn't she?

Err Ms Jane Russell - WE have funded Allison right the way through because it is important. You condescending woman.