Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 2

[ickky]

The Tribunal started on 25th April at 10am. If you would like to view online you need to send a request for access as early as possible.

Send an email to

[email protected]

The subject heading of the email request should read

“MEDIA OR PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST – Case number 2202172/2020 - Ms A Bailey – 25th April 2022.

Then ask for the pin for the online access.

You will be contacted with instructions on how to observe the hearing.

When joining the live tribunal
select the video and mic that are not crossed out, this is the courts vid and mic.
On the next page select NONE on the drop down windows for vid and mic, these are your own video and mic.

You must be muted so as to not disturb the hearing.

There is also live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
AB: Allison Bailey, claimant
BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB
SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)
IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW
RW = Robin White assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell assisting AH
RM= Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GC except AB)
EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case
Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 1 👇

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

It seems to be that that GCC are saying now that the tie-up with Stonewall was about legal assistance rather than campaigning oviraptor21.

BC quite rightly pointed out that same sex marriage was concluded. And, then SL said that is why they thought they were a good organisation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that Stonewall were dragging their feet on same sex marriage. As, before it was introduced, the trans issues were at the forefront of their focus.

Wouldn't that make SW clients? Which they're clearly not ...

Mr Lue seems to be saying that GCC was interested in Stonewall in terms of what they had done in the past, mostly more than a decade previously, and didn't focus on what they were campaigning on at the relevant time, 2018ish.

Stonewall weren't doing much for trans rights before 2015.

They're going to have to wrap up this frustrating waste of time if they want to get to Kate Barker's testimony today.

Yes, SW were originally against equal marriage because marriage is an institution of the het patriarchy etc. etc. Eventually changed their tune out of embarrassment, IIRC.

It's a bit complex. The previous CEO of SW Ben Summerskill though that the achievement of same-sex civil unions was enough and that marriage could wait. It was a bit, 'job done; don't rock the boat guys'.

He left SW in 2025 or 2016 and Ruth Hunt took over and there was training from Gendered Intelligence and the LGB embraced the T, and that became the focus of fundraising & campaigning.

Was just thinking Kate Barker won’t have much time.

His email in pink font???? Is this normal practice in Chambers?

Really worried we won't get Kate's evidence.

They should break soon anyway.

Placemarking

Was just thinking Kate Barker won’t have much time.

I think they said her evidence was very short so if they can actually get her connected it shouldn't need much time.

"Is your name Mr Lue?"

"It is at this moment in time, when you ask me now".

They're taking her now

BC: Stonewall was seeking a strategic partner on the reform of the GRA?
Lue: yes.

Did I just hear that correctly? BC attempting to establish that when GCC signed up as a Stonewall Champion it was in a capacity of campaigning for trans rights — in the hope that Stonewall would direct business in GCC's direction.

Mr Lue copied in the GCC barrister who specialised in transgender issues.

I'm fascinated to learn what Stonewall expects from its champions. I'd assumed it was just money for an audit and a badge, but it's clear that it expected SCs to actively promote and campaign and apply whatever skills/ knowledge they had in the pursuit of Stonewall's aims.

AH keeps chipping in to clarify and muddle things.

Bet he's happy to get a break!

@Pyjamagame too true 😂

SL come across as a fan of weasel words. You, singular for SL or you, plural for the Chambers.

Pronouns do matter (and the same for singular and plural is a bane).

Breaking now for KB and returning to Mr Lue tomorrow is a good idea. In the meantime BC can get himself a better pair of anti-slip gloves.

Another break to waste KB evidence time.

I can't believe they take a break every hour.

Going to Kate B at 16.13

EJGoodman wanted to interrupt to go to Kate Barker but IO has asked for a break. It's plain what's happening here. The other side is going hold up, muddy things, quibble and do whatever they can to make this as difficult as possible for BC and co.