Allison Bailey v Stonewall

guidance on legislative interpretation.

With respect, this purpose is exactly what the appellate courts are for. Only a tiny tiny fraction of issues to do with legislative interpretation come to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and only ones of national importance. Most question of interpretation are settled in the High Court, whose judges day jobs are to do exactly that: legislative interpretation.

It doesn’t credit the EAT or the Court of Appeal appropriately to say this question inevitably falls to be decided by the SC, and previous tribunals didn’t give it weighty consideration.

On the Supreme Court website, the case summary says that there are two issues:

Did Stonewall Equality Ltd cause Garden Court Chambers to discriminate against Ms Bailey contrary to section 111(2) of the Equality Act 2010?

What is the correct approach to causation for the purposes of section 111(2) of the Equality Act 2010?

I think that perhaps one of the reasons why the court decided to hear the case is to consider what is "the correct approach to causation".

Causation, as far as I understand it, is asking the question "Did the defendant do something that caused the claimant a loss?"

That can apply in any situation, not just things connected with the Equality Act.

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2026-0017

Wishing Allison and her team the very best.

The core argument before the SC is around s111(2) Equality Act 2010

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/111

“A person (A) must not cause another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.”

The question is what does A need to have done or not done to have been deemed to have caused B to discriminate against C.

In Allison’s case did Stonewall’s behaviour reach the threshold of having caused GCC to discriminate against her.

This has never been tested before i.e. what is the threshold/behaviour that meets the test of causation rather that just being incidental. None of the lower courts have any precedent to rely on so it is a valid question for the SC.

Edit
I wonder if promulgating an incorrect version of the law as official guidance would meet this test? or did it need the threat of loss of status etc as well.

Does this mean that here we are again, asking the Supreme Court ruling on what the lawmakers (the UK parliament) intended and meant when they wrote the legislation?

There seemed to be lot of legal argument around the meaning of the word 'induce', from what I remember. The Supreme Court will need to decide what parliament intended it to mean at that time, in that context, for its purpose.

It's all the rest I'm a bit hazy on after all this time.

The SC announcement was utterly unilluminating.

The remit of the SC is very different. I am not criticising the other courts but we need proper guidance on legislative interpretation. Employment Tribunal’s are not equipped to do that on something this complex and even the CoA isn’t really the right place.

This is an application of an untested legislative principle.

Tremendous news. I was half listening to the last court hearing and stopped being able to follow even the gist of the legal arguments.

My recollection/impression is along the lines of: the EAT thought that Stonewall's "we trust you to do the right thing" was not Stonewall inducing GC to bad behaviour (which Allison and co say it was). Anything beyond that was way beyond my understanding.😳

I'm going to try reading the UKSC announcement, but not holding out much hope it will help me. Are there are kindly and patient lawyers who can help with the legal story so far please?

To be fair, the arguments have already had a huge amount of rigorous consideration in three different courts, including the top English court. The Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal are not joke tribunals.

And - had the SC declined to hear a further appeal - the legal position would still be settled, albeit in a way that doesn't suit us.

It’s amazing news. At least now these arguments will get the rigorous consideration they deserve. Whatever the outcome, the legal position will be settled.

Obviously fingers crossed for a win.

I made one because I couldn't find this one.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5527142-allison-bailey-granted-permission-to-appeal-re-stonewall

I know we like to keep things on one thread but given this is such big news it probably deserves a new thread so people read it

🍿

OMFG

Just wow.

"losing to Stonewall"

She's gone to the Supreme Court to ask if she can go to the Supreme Court :-)

She is trying to, but can only do so if they agree to take the case.

This thread is confusing me - is AB going to the SC or not?

I think we can assume that permission to appeal was refused by the CofA, otherwise there would be no need to lodge an appeal direct with the SC.

i still think they’ll refuse.

I agree. And GCC lost that case after acting on a Stonewall complaint. It hurt them both financially and reputationally.