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?

Thanks nauticant

And features in a video that has been circulating on the internet for years as a Stonewall person who visits schools. Seems a very weak argument.

Partly. I do think it's easy to think it's all going brilliantly, or all going badly, when in reality there are strengths and weaknesses in the evidence on either side. AB is brilliant and holding up under pressure. But it's also true (I think anyway) that the discussion on 'The Wall' can't reasonably be regarded as a direct instruction. The problem when people communicate through a sort of web of social pressure is that it can be very difficult to see exactly where the decisions are being made, and where the pressure is coming from. GCC have an argument that there needs to be a clear demonstration that they were influenced by, rather than merely listened to, the complaints about AB. They also have an argument that they didn't necessarily place as much weight on Stonewall's opinions as people are saying they did.

We'll have to see how well that holds up under BC's examination.

Brilliantly put - thanks tabby.

I do like the contrast between the vocal style of Martin (London cabby) Reuby and the other speakers with their posh-sounding deliveries.

Yeah, i like him too.

There's a lot of messing about with names now. Could this get us all thrown out?

I feel like we're testing EJ's patience here...

Thanks tabby and trio!

I thought the argument re the discussion on the wall is that the discussion is not in itself an instruction, but it confirms the existence of instructions. Does that discussion then link up to actual correspondence between SW and GCC anywhere? Or is the argument that the discussion led to some off the record communication to GCC which the person saying "Done" confirms?

I know there has been at least some confirmed correspondence between SW and GCC about AB that included "I trust you'll do the right thing" or something else appropriately vague and sinister, but I guess that's not enough of a smoking gun on its own?

GCC have an argument that there needs to be a clear demonstration that they were influenced by, rather than merely listened to, the complaints about AB. They also have an argument that they didn't necessarily place as much weight on Stonewall's opinions as people are saying they did.

That wouldn't get Stonewall off the hook though would it? Yes, your Honour, we tried to get her fired because of her protected beliefs and penis-exclusionary sexual orientation, but we weren't very good at it.

To use a tennis analogy IO keeps serving into the net.

The occasional one IO gets over the net Allison is easily able to return and break serve.

It's slow and frustrating.

I am not a legal person at all, but it seems that IO's questioning is working more to Allison's favour than detriment? What is anyone else's feel for it?

'That wouldn't get Stonewall off the hook though would it? Yes, your Honour, we tried to get her fired because of her protected beliefs and penis-exclusionary sexual orientation, but we weren't very good at it.'

I don't think so, but it might get GCC off the hook.

'I thought the argument re the discussion on the wall is that the discussion is not in itself an instruction, but it confirms the existence of instructions. Does that discussion then link up to actual correspondence between SW and GCC anywhere? Or is the argument that the discussion led to some off the record communication to GCC which the person saying "Done" confirms?'

It confirms the existence of efforts to persuade GCC to take action against AB. Then there was the complaint from the Head of Trans Inclusion, which has more 'consequence' attached to it (it would endanger the relationship). But it's questionable how far the GCC Heads of Chambers (rather than Michelle Brewer and her winged monkeys) cared about that.

Yes, it's slow and frustrating and without any of the OMG moments in Maya's tribunal, where people ended up spilling stuff. Every word is fought over.

I'm interested in the use of the word 'instructed' and not, say, 'incited'. Perhaps a lawyer would explain.

IANAL either but that's my sense too. I don't understand why she keeps going back to it other than I assume that these are technical legal points and she's trying to get a check mate by the instructions point and the not an employee point.

To prove her case AB needs to show that A links to B, B links to C, and C links to D. To undermine AB's case, IO needs to throw doubt onto one or more of those links. (AB's case is more like a net than a single chain but the latter is an easier analogy to present.) Seeing IO fail one argument against one of the links still leaves much open for her to exploit, and for AH to do likewise.

I also think that IO is making headway in her attempt to undermine that comments on the Stonewall intranet wall were an instruction to GCC.

tabby thank you so much for your analysis!

From a broader GC perspective, would it still be a good outcome if it's a finding against Stonewall but not against GCC? Or is a finding against a Stonewall client org needed to really put the wind up people?

(Setting aside the part where almost anyone who's read Alison's witness statement would like GCC to get their comeuppance.)

I wonder whether the initial reluctance of Stonewall to disclose at every stage in all this is significant? Not making any allegations obviously.

People were posting messages almost like a transcript of the MF tribunal, to enable people to follow. Are we allowed to do that on here this time or has a Court Order been made against it? I might be able to do a bit if not illegal/injunction against it?

The issue with Stonewall is broader than winning or losing. A significant part of the value for GC people is to reveal how Stonewall uses its considerable influence behind the scenes, either directly or via its agents.

I agree that if AB's case requires a direct recorded instruction from SW to GCC to explicitly single AB/ any gender-critical person out for specific action then this will be hard to come by. (I'm only halfway through Allison's very excellent witness statement, so could be wrong!).

I would have thought that enough of what they have clearly points to this happening. And obviously, it's likely that many documents that should've turned up in SAR haven't been, and that many conversations were not documented.

IO: You say do you that with whatsapp msg SK is inducing GC to discriminate against you?
AB: Yes; you can tell that by what MB did as a result of it.

I think this is a good way of framing it.

I wonder whether the initial reluctance of Stonewall to disclose at every stage in all this is significant?

Does that get taken into account at all? I am guessing it must have some weight or it wouldn't have been referenced so much in the witness statement, but what inferences are allowed to be drawn from the reluctance to disclose and general footdragging of one party?

what inferences are allowed to be drawn from the reluctance to disclose and general footdragging of one party?

I'd assume it's because they are the most vulnerable group in society and therefore we should all be kind towards them.

'From a broader GC perspective, would it still be a good outcome if it's a finding against Stonewall but not against GCC? Or is a finding against a Stonewall client org needed to really put the wind up people?'

Either helps us. If Stonewall is culpable, that is horribly embarrassing for them (good). But if GCC is culpable (in my view) it's better, because it means employers (the people with the actual power of hiring, firing and promoting) will start to question their positions on gender identity ideology and how they actually affect different groups of their employees.

I think that'll be fine in Real Life Time, Shiloh, and I'd appreciate it if you can manage a bit of the main argument as it happens, where you can, especially for Ben Cooper. (I'm not logged in, but looking at this thread.)