Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing Thread 19

lol. So much of ourselves is on these threads. Aston University will be having a field day.

Thanks.

Seemed a really bizarre request at the time but I've now tracked it down and I've also read your explanation of why it might have been necessary in threads 5 and 6 from two years ago

Cause or induce.

Words are so important aren't they. It's crucial that we have a common understanding of what they mean both in law and in life.

It would be silly to go about changing the meaning of words like, oh I don't know, the word 'woman' for example 🙄

Thanks I did, another 2 hours I can never retrieve, for my accelerating trajectory to my ultimate demise.😃

Not sticking up for them particularly but we know that a huge number of trans identified people are neurodivergent and this is what all the adjustments are for. I think SK needed coloured paper - which is something I also need - and extra processing time.

@Karensalright An appeal from an EAT is heard by the the Court of Appeal - that’s the procedure. Perhaps you might like look at judiciary.uk as a starting point for further learning - if so enjoy 😊

When Shaan Knan gave evidence I seem to recall that they had a bizarre (and rather lengthy) list of requirements as to how documents had to be presented to them.

Do you happen to have a link to that? (Or did I make it up?)

It's interesting how short SW's skeleton is. They are basically arguing that the tribunal's decision was a finding of fact, which can't be subject to appeal. Only errors of law can be subject to appeal and they say no error of law was made. They go into hardly any detail at all.

Ben's skeleton is very clear and logical IMO. It clearly shows that the tribunal did not set out it's full reasoning in some places and I do think it made an error of law in terms of what "cause or induce" means. I think there is a very strong chance of the appeal being upheld. But the problem with court cases is that you can never be sure!

It seems very clear to me that without KM's letter GCC would not have carried out the further investigation and then carried out the detriments. Even if it wasn't an inducement (although I would say it was as there was an underlying threatening tone to the letter) it was certainly the cause of the detriment.

I am feeling hopeful.

I've been unable to follow today as at work with no internet. Thank you to all the previous posters and Tribunal Tweets for the catch up.
I shall follow with great interest,although nothing could top the original tribunal,bincidents,support dogs,bundle bungling and all.

Totally agree am in the middle of doing just that, still on Ben mind.

I highly recommend reading AB/BC's skeleton if like me you occasionally had a hard time following today, the fog is lifting as I go!

This may be a stupid question, but I’ve always wondered if judges have to make decisions themselves, or can they seek the opinions of their peers?

Eg in this case, section 111 has never been tested in EAT or above.

So does the judge have to decide himself whether he agrees with BCs or IOs meaning, or can he ask his judge mates what their opinion is of how the law should be interpreted?

@MarjorieDanvers Is that because the EAT judges are sourced from the High Court Kings bench? Just learning for me as no clue to procedural rules.

Thanks

@nauticant apologies I missed your post!

Any appeal from an EAT is to the Court of Appeal

@yourhairiswinterfire thanks

Allison has shared her and Stonewall's skeleton arguments, and the bundle.

https://twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1790441959946912058

Cos they are fragile in a hostile environment, and might suffer trauma innit

I still can’t understand how anyone can hold a presumably well paid professional position if they’re so incapable of giving evidence without both technical and emotional assistance.

It seems that the solicitor was doubling up as the technical support worker for Medcalf Cailin66. So, as originally set up (and hidden from the tribunal), 3 support people and one support dog.

I have no idea of the potential outcome here but my sense is (based on studying cases to settle interpreting legislation in the courts) that this might go up to the high court at the very least.

As I understand it, appeals from the EAT go to the Court of Appeal.

Sorry to ask. Is that how many?
mother
dog
solicitor
technical support person
emotional support Person
so 5?
minus the emotional person now, so 4?

why did the emotional one leave?

I forgot to say about doubt she will back down until she secures the defeat of Stonewall and its allies for good.

A hero in the making, seeing clearly, her role in the life she has been given.

Through adversity, she has triumphed and made of it, a tenacity to behold.

If i thought God existed i would thank her daily for making Alison.

Thank you Karen and all the other wise women for these explanations.

Flowing from that S111 uses both words caused and or induced. So either way somebody slipped.

R argues that there was already an investigation before, so KM as an agent of SW did not contribute in any way to the decisions of GCC.

However sort of glosses over KM causing others to complain on STAG, but that ET held that there was no proof from C that these events interacted.

This is really a complex argument about the scope of S111, and it would seem to me that Ben used other pieces of discriminatory legislation, and subsequent interpretations to steer the Judge towards his view on the scope of S111, broader than the ET determined.

And broader than the respondent would want.

The judge seems to favour Bens accidental argument.

So it seems to me that S111 has never been relied upon before by a complainant.

I have no idea of the potential outcome here but my sense is (based on studying cases to settle interpreting legislation in the courts) that this might go up to the high court at the very least.

Lets see how R finishes up and what Ben says tomorrow.