Ah bother, I think I've put a verboten link in my second post.
Here is the text without the link. Sorry, overworked MN admins!
I wanted to update you on a hearing in my case that took place on Tuesday (21 July). Girlguiding had applied for it to deal with various things.
Firstly, they wanted to overturn the “stay” (a delay) of the hearing that the Judge had ordered because Maya Forstater’s case overlaps with mine and is being dealt with by a higher court. We asked for a stay of my case until Maya’s is dealt with, because otherwise we would have had two courts deciding a very similar issue at the same time, which would have caused confusion. The Court had previously agreed with us, and ordered the stay without needing a hearing. Girlguiding wanted this overturned so asked for a hearing for this to be considered.
Secondly, they wanted to overturn the permission I had been granted to amend my claim. When I put my claim form in, before I had any lawyers, I had mistakenly referred to one aspect of my claim as being direct discrimination, rather than (the correct) indirect discrimination. Clearly better that I DO have lawyers!
This was only on the form itself – in the pleadings itself (the description of the case, which my lawyers helped prepare) we made it clear it was indirect discrimination. Girlguiding have not had any obvious problem with this, and have lodged a defence to my indirect indiscrimination claim. We had therefore applied to correct the mistake on the claim form to substitute “indirect” for “direct”, which the Court had agreed on the papers, without a hearing. But Girlguiding wanted this overturned too, so needed a hearing for this to be considered.
Thirdly, Girlguiding wanted at this hearing to arrange for another hearing to be listed, to separately determine whether my belief in Gender Critical Feminism is Protected under the Equality Act 2020.
There were also some case management issues – which “track” to assign the case to (so, small claims, county court etc.). Each track has slightly different rules. My case is a bit unusual. I’m not claiming for much in the way of damages – Injury to Feelings awards, the way that discrimination damages are measured, are arranged in bands. I am seeking an award in the lowest band, of £5,000. But it is a legally complex case, because the belief that I am relying on has not been determined before. The question of which track to apply could have been dealt with on the papers, but as we were having a hearing, it was dealt with at the hearing.
The long and the short of it is that we got everything we wanted. The stay was allowed, so was the amendment, and there won’t be a separate hearing to discuss my beliefs separately from the facts of my expulsion from Girlguiding. All in all, a good day in court (obviously video court!). Huge thanks to my barrister Adam Ohringer for his work.
One of things that stood out for me was the way that Girlguiding is dealing with the case. I was represented on Monday by my barrister. To keep costs down, and because the matters were straightforward, my solicitor decided it wasn’t necessary for him to attend, so it was just Adam. Given how the hearing went, that decision was definitely the right one.
But facing my barrister, on behalf of Girlguiding on the other side were:
One QC (“silk”)
One non-QC barrister (but a pretty senior one – 29 years experience as a barrister and, I am told, extremely well-respected in her field)
Three more (!) lawyers or paralegals of one form or another from Girlguiding’s solicitors.
Before hearings like this, both sides have to send in a costs schedule – basically a spreadsheet which sets out the costs the lawyers are charging their clients, so that the successful party can have their costs paid by the losing party at the end of the hearing. Ours came to just over £6,000. The Court ordered Girlguiding to pay most of this - £4,800 - back to us to be used later in the case (I am told that the Court only rarely orders the full amount of costs to be paid – it’s part of the policy of dissuading people from going to court where it can be avoided and so easing the pressure on the Courts system).
In comparison to our costs of £6,000, Girlguiding’s cost schedule showed that they had incurred costs for preparing and attending the hearing of nearly £33,000! Added to the amount they have to pay back for my costs, this means that the three hour hearing on Tuesday cost Girlguiding over £40,000, for which they got – well, nothing really.
But that’s not all. Girlguiding’s lawyers also submitted costs schedules for the work they have done on various other bits of the case up to now. This shows that they already spent £45,057.56 (not including the £4,800 they now need to repay to me) just on various procedural applications and the short hearing on Tuesday. As well as paying for drafting their defence, they may have spent nearly £100,000 so far, and we’ve not even really started yet.
If I lose – and I might, this is complicated law, and nothing is certain – I could be liable for their costs. Not for the £33,000 they would have claimed for Tuesday’s hearing if they’d won – that’s gone now, thankfully, because they got nothing they were asking for. But if they carry on like this, it’s likely that costs will continue to rack up on their side as the case progresses.
The pressure of taking on such a big organisation by myself is quite daunting, so I am incredibly grateful for all the support that I have received. Thank you all, it means the world.
But we’re not done yet, and I haven’t yet achieved the level of funding which means I will definitely be able to see this through.
But for now, everything is on ice pending the outcome of Maya’s appeal. Crossing everything for her Appeal Tribunal!
Katie