Page 10 | Employment Tribunal finds NB does not meet PC of GR

DrProfessorYaffle · 2025-11-28T09:33:00+00:00

[[https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/h-lockwood-v-cheshire-and-wirral-nhs-foundation-trust-and-others-2401211-slash-2024-and-2407178-slash-2024 https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/h-lockwood-v-cheshire-and-wirral-nhs-foundation-trust-and-others-2401211-slash-2024-and-2407178-slash-2024]] "*Although the claimant has taken steps to change attributes of their sex * *from female, by changing their name to a name which can be identified as of * *either sex, and has changed their preferred pronouns, those are not in our * *view attributes which are for the purpose of moving from one sex to the other, * *they are steps in the process of moving away from the female sex to a * *different gender identity, ie that of non binary. The claimant is not proposing,* *nor do they intend to take any steps to reassign their sex from that of female * *to male. * *105. We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected * *characteristic of gender reassignment."*

Tadpolesinponds · 28/11/2025 12:12

A judgement at Employment Tribunal level doesn't set a legal precedent, unfortunately, though other tribunals may find it persuasive.

SqueakyDinosaur · 28/11/2025 12:10

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I don't see it like this at all - interesting! To me, the claimant's case is part of the gender omnicause - Stonewall used to have the mantra "Trans women are women, trans men are men, non-binary identities are valid", and RMW is acting in a case that tests the third part of that statement.

nutmeg7 · 28/11/2025 12:03

ArabellaSaurus · 28/11/2025 10:56

'On 31 January 2024, Yvette Dunn failed to acknowledge the Claimant in a corridor interaction, responding with a brief “hi” and turning away'

JFC.

Indeed, it is reminiscent of Dr U complaining that Sandie Peggy ignored him or didn’t make the correct eye contact or facial expression when he interrupted her talking to another member of staff.

Imagine being on constant alert looking out for grievances, micro-insults, people not responding to you in the exactly correct prescribed manner.

I have never read anything so self-centred and emotionally immature as the behaviour of the claimant in that judgement.

A nightmare to work with.

CohensDiamondTeeth · 28/11/2025 12:03

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

JamieCannister · 28/11/2025 12:00

According to the SRA "Counsel - A term used to describe a barrister".

Barristers act as advocates. Surely if the Tribunal decision refers to "counsel" it must be a barrister, whereas if it refers to an "advocate" then the person may or may not be a barrister (they might be a solicitor advocate or potentially a lay-person acting as advocate)

Original poster

DrProfessorYaffle · 28/11/2025 12:00

No other Ms R White's come up in relation to employment law on a quick Google.

It's interesting because of RMW's role in the Taylor case around NB protections.

FWS has been so fundamental.

OP posts:

Chersfrozenface · 28/11/2025 11:58

I think its a different one as otherwise 'moira' or M would appear?

Not necessarily. The other counsel's name is given as Ms C Widdett. Now Widdett is an uncommon name and the only barrister with that surname is Ms Ceri Louise Widdett, so only the first initial given.

weegielass · 28/11/2025 11:53

I think its a different one as otherwise 'moira' or M would appear? As a PP said, its a common surname and a quick google confirms there's a few legal folk with that surname

Chersfrozenface · 28/11/2025 11:53

CassOle · 28/11/2025 11:47

Unless there is another 'R White'?

I've checked the Register and the only Ms R White who is a barrister is RMW.

But I don't know whether counsel at an employment tribunal has to be a barrister.

JustFish · 28/11/2025 11:52

I keep getting something like that scrubs meme running through my mind 'Haech is crazy'

CassOle · 28/11/2025 11:47

Unless there is another 'R White'?

CohensDiamondTeeth · 28/11/2025 11:46

SternJoyousBeev2 · 28/11/2025 11:41

I did wonder if it was him but didn’t want to assume as ‘White’ isn’t an unusual surname.

I would have paid good money to have been able to watch this ET.

Ah just noted that White is the Rs counsel. If it was him I would definitely pay to watch him defend against a NB claimant

Edited

Show quote history

Is it definitely that RMW? I assumed it was, but now I'm second guessing myself.

If it is that RMW, that is indeed very interesting!

SternJoyousBeev2 · 28/11/2025 11:41

CassOle · 28/11/2025 11:32

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/Haech_Lockwood_v_Cheshire_and_Wirral_NHS_Foundation_Trust_and_others_2401211_2024___2407178_2024.pdf
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Miss C Widdett – Counsel
Respondent: Ms R White – Counsel

Show quote history

I did wonder if it was him but didn’t want to assume as ‘White’ isn’t an unusual surname.

I would have paid good money to have been able to watch this ET.

Ah just noted that White is the Rs counsel. If it was him I would definitely pay to watch him defend against a NB claimant

SqueakyDinosaur · 28/11/2025 11:41

Paragraph 137 is glorious. It reads, in its entirety:

All claims fail and are dismissed.

As six word phrases go, it's up there with Johann Lamont's amendent ("For the word gender, substitute sex").

Original poster

DrProfessorYaffle · 28/11/2025 11:38

unwashedanddazed · 28/11/2025 11:32

I'd love to know how much this nonsense is costing the NHS. Aside from the huge costs of tribunals, there's the cost involved in one individual attempting to reorganise how every other colleague goes about their work. The IT dept and the vaccine nurses both say they have changed working practise in response to this person's demands. There's the management time, HR time, constant training. And always, always masses of time spent off sick recovering from every perceived offence they can manage to identify in perfectly ordinary interactions with colleagues.

This is a just one person, but this goes on all across the NHS adding up to millions which is lost to patient services.

Absolutely.

And they have to recognise that they have stitched themselves up with their stupid illegal policies too.

OP posts:

Chersfrozenface · 28/11/2025 11:37

CassOle · 28/11/2025 11:32

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/Haech_Lockwood_v_Cheshire_and_Wirral_NHS_Foundation_Trust_and_others_2401211_2024___2407178_2024.pdf
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Miss C Widdett – Counsel
Respondent: Ms R White – Counsel

Show quote history

Ms R White was counsel for the Respondents i.e. the Trust and others.

PrettyDamnCosmic · 28/11/2025 11:37

SqueakyDinosaur · 28/11/2025 11:15

Oh joy. Counsel for the claimant was RoMoWh.

In fact he was acting for the Respondent ie defending the claim. This is from the judgment linked up thread.

REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Miss C Widdett – Counsel
Respondent: Ms R White – Counsel

Original poster

DrProfessorYaffle · 28/11/2025 11:37

Greyskybluesky · 28/11/2025 11:34

That totally didn't register with me! Is that who that is? Oh dear.

Show quote history

That means he won! He was representing the NHS trust and arguing against the Claimant and their TRA stance.

Interesting.

OP posts:

SternJoyousBeev2 · 28/11/2025 11:35

MrsOvertonsWindow · 28/11/2025 10:19

Isn't it revealing about how a self absorbed individual can wreak such havoc in a workplace?

Show quote history

Absolutely. The wasted time caused by this individual’s self absorption and self importance is shocking. I imagine she is utterly insufferable to work with.

Greyskybluesky · 28/11/2025 11:34

CassOle · 28/11/2025 11:32

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/Haech_Lockwood_v_Cheshire_and_Wirral_NHS_Foundation_Trust_and_others_2401211_2024___2407178_2024.pdf
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Miss C Widdett – Counsel
Respondent: Ms R White – Counsel

Show quote history

That totally didn't register with me! Is that who that is? Oh dear.

JamieCannister · 28/11/2025 11:33

MrsOvertonsWindow · 28/11/2025 10:19

Isn't it revealing about how a self absorbed individual can wreak such havoc in a workplace?

Show quote history

They only wreak such havoc if they're not summarily dismissed for the most grotesque bullying, due to weak management.

CassOle · 28/11/2025 11:32

Greyskybluesky · 28/11/2025 11:28

How do you know?

Show quote history

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/Haech_Lockwood_v_Cheshire_and_Wirral_NHS_Foundation_Trust_and_others_2401211_2024___2407178_2024.pdf
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Miss C Widdett – Counsel
Respondent: Ms R White – Counsel

unwashedanddazed · 28/11/2025 11:32

I'd love to know how much this nonsense is costing the NHS. Aside from the huge costs of tribunals, there's the cost involved in one individual attempting to reorganise how every other colleague goes about their work. The IT dept and the vaccine nurses both say they have changed working practise in response to this person's demands. There's the management time, HR time, constant training. And always, always masses of time spent off sick recovering from every perceived offence they can manage to identify in perfectly ordinary interactions with colleagues.

This is a just one person, but this goes on all across the NHS adding up to millions which is lost to patient services.

Greyskybluesky · 28/11/2025 11:28

SqueakyDinosaur · 28/11/2025 11:15

Oh joy. Counsel for the claimant was RoMoWh.

How do you know?

MrsOvertonsWindow · 28/11/2025 11:27

ArabellaSaurus · 28/11/2025 10:56

'On 31 January 2024, Yvette Dunn failed to acknowledge the Claimant in a corridor interaction, responding with a brief “hi” and turning away'

JFC.

All part of the script isn't it? Monitor everyone for all failures to genuflect deeply enough.
As said upthread - coercive control of others is embedded in this ideology