Allison Bailey v Stonewall

Well, that's odd. It seems an application for permission to appeal was lodged with the Court of Appeal on 23rd January and another was lodged directly with the Supreme Court on 13th February: https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2026-0017

So it looks very much like the Court of Appeal did turn down the application, and quite quickly, which must surely be unusual.

It doesn't necessarily mean her chances of success are any less but, combined with a lack of update, it is a bit worrying.

Stonewall succesfully argued in court that it wasn't their fault that people following their advice might find themselves on the wrong side of discrimination law.

I do not think it is a coincidence that companies and organisations have been walking away from Stonewall affiliations and the diversity champions scheme ever since.

Whatever Stonewall may think, they were seen as "best practice" for diversity, as grown-ups who gave grown up advice. Companies and organisations believed they were getting expert help navigating a contenious and tricky area.

That value proposition is now dead in the water. I am not sure SW realised just how much "winning" with that defense shot themself in the foot.

I've just checked her website and it says she's submitted an application to the court of appeal for permission to appeal to the Supreme court. That was 23rd January

ETA I don't think there's been any decision on that application yet

Chris lad, your typing is pointless, worthless, & at best an occasion of pity.
/engagement

Sorry, I've obv not made myself clear. After failing to win her case at the Court of Appeal, Allison would have to ask the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal their decision to the Supreme Court. I presume they refused to give permission and now she is left with the final option of asking the Supreme Court itself if they will hear the case.

No, the appeal was allowed and the case was heard at the Court of appeal but she wasn't successful

It has been several months since the judgment was handed down so I presume permission to appeal was initially refused by the Court of Appeal and now Allison is seeking permission direct from the Supreme Court. Has this been confirmed anywhere?

Support dogs have gone down in history ....

I think it is a lot harder to say that a bunch of lawyers who claim to specialise in equality law should not have sole responsibility for following incorrect advice from non-lawyers on that law, than it would be if it were lay people following that advice.

Personally I dont see the Supreme Court giving permission to appeal. I think Stonewall should have been liable but 2 courts have disagreed.

Stonewall aren't winning out of this either way - winning the court case means they're successfully disowning responsibility for the advice they're selling. Who's going to want to buy now? They're disgraced either way but bravo to Allison for having a go at getting them to take responsibility for their actions.

It isn't a loss of a million to expose their shakedowns. Money well spent.

How on earth did Stonewall get away with saying that they don’t give advice? Their schemes are based on “statements” about what constitutes good practice and then they give detailed responses telling organisations how to score higher. How is that not advice?!

And it’s been worth every penny to expose the lunatics they have working at stonewall. They’ll think twice before going after people’s jobs now.

Yes we cannot fault her, no harm was done. Well other than losing a million pounds and humiliating herself by losing to Stonewall twice.

Those are both good arguments for allowing an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Which is what took place. I just can't see the SC having a different take on overturning a finding of fact at the first level than the CofA.

I'm not saying you're wrong; just that that bolt has already been shot.

I know, I cannot fault her for trying, I think eventually we have to have case law or statute that makes these clowns liable for the duff services they flog.

I agree with that question. But if the question is as spannasaurus states then I am not so confident. If it is put in complaint terms, that an organisation incorrectly upheld another organisations complaint, then that sounds too tenuous to put on the complainant.

I was hoping that inducement might still be sufficiently vague but the question to which I hoped the case might furnish an answer is; should persons & orgs who hold themselves out as expert sources of training & advice be liable for their clients' implementation of what turns out to be utter bullshit? [stares hard in the direction of both Stonewall & McKinsey].

This is how Allison described the point of the previous appeal

The central question in the appeal is whether it is lawful for an organisation like Stonewall to protest about someone’s protected characteristic to Garden Court Chambers as a member of its own Diversity Champions Scheme – and then avoid liability when its scheme member unlawfully and discriminatorily upholds that complaint, as occurred in my case.

Yes they can overturn a finding of fact if it is not rational, plainly wrong or where evidence at the original hearing was not properly interpreted although i accept the bar is high.

in this case if i recall correctly there seemed to have been a decision that there was a level of remoteness where the actions of the employee at stonewall and had no direct knock on effect.

I think it is an important point of law and should rightly be heard but i have no view on the outcome if heard at all.

Perhaps it’s worth reminding that the Supreme Court only takes cases where there’s a genuine question of law that needs to be clarified and hasn’t already been, or a justice of the Supreme Court thinks the Coirt of Appeal got wrong and they want to fix.

the British legal system is basically founded on the idea that you get your day in court and the opportunity to have a more senior judge cast their eye over things th check things went ok - so one appeal. AB has already had two.

Is there a principle of law at stake here that’s vital to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland toast means the SC should spend time on it? In FWS we know what that point of law was. What is it in Bailey vs Stonewall?

I think the case foundered on a finding of fact. An appellate court can’t overturn that.

And secondly I don’t think whoever triages cases for listing by the Supreme Court will agree there’s a point of law of sufficient national importance. The Court of Appeal had its go at clarifying how to interpret the novel parts of the law about inducement, that had never been tested before, and I think they will let it go at that.

Just my opinion.

It would be good it more generally training organisations could be held responsible for training organisations to break the law.

@HildegardP
The email that Kirin sent to Garden Court was a clear coercive threat.

Stonewalls defence in the first case was that they do not give legal advice.
In the second it was that they do not give advice.
How will they wiggle out of the third ?