Allison Bailey v Stonewall

From TT2

BC - Para 21 the illegitimate reason for an adverse reference. It is not too remote, it is close and direct...
If you were to transpose this to present case, they fit like a glove

Ben’s got an authority! This calls for a happy dance on the head of a pin with the angels.

(I may have joined Myrtle on the lunchtime painkillers.)

From TT2

..uses this example - unfavourable reference...P365 para 15 - I will focus on para 18 no rule of free choice...same point para 19. Para 20 dealing with foreseeability.
[quotes this example regarding supply of information]

That works

From TT2

BC - discusses an underlying test in relation to EA and foreseeability and its requirement and losses from discrimination
BC - refers to Tab 8 of Authorities Bundle...

From TT2

BC refers to more civil case law.
This is an entirely unique statutory tort it is not immediately apparent which of those ought to be selected for those purposes,

From TT2

J - asks Kuwait Airways what para?
J - extra criteria value judgments?
BC exactly that
para 70 elaborated on epithets lawyers rely on

From TT2

He IDs establishing the scope for which the def may be liable in tort.

[discusses case]
A case of law and judgement - the correct criteria to test whether Person A ought to be held liable to the primary fact it had found.

From TT2

The leading auth [quotes Authorities bundle] the core point p276 para 69
Tab 5

From TT2

You can have a situation where A and B share the same prejudice person A would not be liable.

The EAT approach unworkable and the only approach that is stable is to refer back to the underlying causes of action, that is consistent with authority.

From TT2

Para 123 of decision p71 of bundle: EAT says second line - does not depend on test of foreseeability, but it will be relevant but will depend on facts.

Similarly the emph EAT places on para 115, p70 on the precise causal relationship between A actions and B's response is in my submission unworkable.
What the EAT appears to be saying is that As actions need to be the direct trigger for the discrim thought process of person B

From TT2

in my submission in supplying the test because as I have indicated the duty bearers need to know what it is they are and aren't allowed to do

From TT2

BC Right and common ground that the term cause doesn't imply a conscious motive on the part of person A and that must be right or it would be inconsistent with emp law.
It is necessary to analyse the scope of obligation to find what the defend ought to be held for
the eat is wron

From TT2

What SubSection 4 is doing is making it clear that an inducement may be implied by bringing it directly to the inducee

The effect to broaden the narrower scope of inducement. Not saying anything about the scope of causation. The statute doesn't need to specify in relation to that. In my submission Section 111.2 page 29
Number of points:

From TT2

BC which is the provis in relation to inducement
My learned friend relies on that.
My submission is that it is not what that subsection implies. [refers to p834] the Authorities Bundle para 917

You will see directness is addressed. The inducement does not have to be direct can be indirect...that draws on auth to earlier caselaw in Teachers of Dancing [refers to bundle]

Myrtle, you are a marvel.

From TT2

But it would be equally absurd if A were not liable if their conduct had all of the chara of direct discrim... but some intervening cause that negated that liability.

How is anyone to know what it is they are not supposed to do The only poss source of these add features in the

underlying main forms of prohib conduct in P2 of the statutes and to this case - if the answer is just a protest what are the chara of a protest that mean having regard to the statute, that mean liability is to be negated

..this would related to someone's race or sex. There are other feature of Sect 111 that support a broad interp.
Para 46 at P32.
The one I pick up is at sub para 46.3

I think this is the link https://www.youtube.com/live/kd-eCh4KijI?si=echHB5ghugyN3tzb

Hosepipe and scalpel, I believe. Hurts like a bastard. So they give me morphine every two hours.

From TT2

A and B that there is liability for any culp in that interaction where all of those relationships fall within the spheres where the Act applies. [Gives example]

BC - this is an area where you shouldn't be doing things to be prohibited within the statute
J - there must be a relationship between B and C?
BC - yes
J but not A and C?

BC it is to bridge that gap if a is doing things to b and c in this sphere and those things are culp in the EA sense
On the 1 hand absurd if person A could be liable in circs where he or she does not have the relevant consc or subcons motivation.

(I’m now grimly fascinated as to how they do that? A sort of meat scraper or a little hosepipe?)

Anyway, back to the courtroom …

What link are you using?

If that is meant to link to the pm session I'm still only getting this morning...

From TT2

BC - Part 3 p22 the statute contains various parts to prohibit various types of conduct: Services and public functions and P4 the premises P5 work P6 education P7 to associations. At that point we get to P8, which is headed 'conduct ancillary' dealing with relationships ended..

.liability of employees and agents for the acts they commit in their employment. Section 111 and 112 knowlingly aiding...conduct ancillary
1 - the primary context ought to inform must be the primary the primary prohib conduct
That's the primary

2 it's apparrent from the terms of the section itself what its purpose is.
What it is doing is reaching the overarching purpose of meeting discrimination by ensuring a person who is subjected to a detriment because of an interaction between 2 parties

I'm still in awe