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?

Lurking. May I ask a very basic question please?

Is the case that AB was discriminated purely for being GC?
Or is it that she was discriminated for being a woman and lesbian (which made her GC)?
I would have thought the former would be much easier to prove but from commentary I have the impression it is the latter??

By the way, he’s not an employee of GCC. A chambers is a group of self-employed individuals who group together to share admin and office costs, and (hopefully) the good name and reputation of the set of chambers. There is pressure because in the event of a successful claim that group of individuals will have to contribute to the damages in whatever proportions they have agreed, and their collective reputation may affect them as individuals, but it’s not quite the same as the boss pressuring an employee.

Absolutely this.

Having read some of the bundle now, I'm really, really looking forward to seeing Michelle Brewer on the stand.

Thanks DL. That's helpful re. how a chambers is structured. I didn't know that.

Is the case that AB was discriminated purely for being GC?
Or is it that she was discriminated for being a woman and lesbian (which made her GC)?

I think she's arguing both.

Direct discrimination on the basis of her gender critical beliefs, and indirect discrimination and victimisation based on sex.

I was thinking exactly the same.

I know 2 barristers, one of them very well, and if there's one quality they have in spades it's the ability to think on their feet.

Other important skills are being able to separate a tiny bit of wheat in a question/response from a hell of a lot of chaff - and BEING PREPARED. He'll have read everything, and noted where he is most likely to come a cropper, and where he has to try to deflect. He knows full well what he is doing

This performance by SL wouldn't encourage me to brief him if I was looking for a barrister - and he is obviously doing very nicely at GCC, so I can only assume he's milking it here.

Pity it isn't in court - he wouldn't have this option and BC would be wiping his blood off the walls by now.

I agree. It interferes with the impression that is gained of the witness eg not being straightforward. It doesn't engender empathy but maybe the panel aren't that concerned by that?

Lue is really trying to present himself as an innocent.

'This performance by SL wouldn't encourage me to brief him if I was looking for a barrister - and he is obviously doing very nicely at GCC, so I can only assume he's milking it here.'

I'm going to be honest. I'd snap him up. Obfuscatory, pedantic, slow, very familiar with the material and pretends he isn't. He's very good.

BC finally managing to punch through the slipperiness.

Thanks yourhair

But BC did just ask him a good 'un. Mr Lue has in the past (and in writing) accused WPUK of 'just not liking transwomen' but doesn't accept that he is accusing them of transphobia.

BC is in it now.

I can't believe this is doing his career any good though evasive lawyers is perhaps what people want.

This is the meat of it now. Pretty damning.

Surely what AH is doing "isn't in the spirit".

Slippery as an eel, rude, utterly disingenuous, this Mr Lue

Last desperate attempt to avoid answering as soon as BC really nails him down…..with 'helpful' intervention from AH too

I don't know what this transcript is of or when it's from, but it's very extensive and clearly at odds with Mr Lue's insistence that he didn't really understand the GC position or the issue of sex-based rights. It's official: he did.

Would a witness ever be pulled up by a judge for these timewasting stunts?

Also to the pp who said this wouldn't happen in an actual court, do they not have access to reading bundles in a court etc? (Sorry this is v ignorant of me.)

Happy to clarify! Lots of people assume it’s a traditional workplace, or that it’s a partnership, when it’s neither (it’s an unincorporated association). This is why they are talking about the constitution. They mean the chambers constitution - this is the governing document which determines how the chambers is run and which you sign up to when you join.

This background may be useful as time goes on. Chambers usually has a head of chambers (mostly elected but sometimes a titular post) and almost always a management board of 6-8 members (almost invariably elected). They are delegated to take most of the important decisions on a day to day basis because you can’t have 75 or 100 people chipping in every time you need to renegotiate the photocopier contract. There is usually an AGM to vote on things like how much of a percentage members will pay of their fees that year towards costs. Really serious one-off issues like moving premises might be discussed at an EGM.

There will then be a series of committees which may be elected or may be voluntary membership - such as a pupillage committee which interviews for new members, and practice groups or teams which market and develop different areas. So you might have a criminal law team, a public law team, employment team etc and they decide on how to build expertise through training and marketing etc.

What Ben is driving at here is that GCC seems to have established a trans law practice group. That was the quid pro who, it looks like - they pay a shedload to SW to be a champion and in return they build credibility in an emerging area of law.

I think BC is spoiling his own argument here by referring to Apartheid. It provides scope for quibbling.

The transcript is from Garden Court Chambers training on the GRA in June 2018 (before AB's tweets). IMO completely undermines SL's claims so far in his evidence.

It's from a GRA Training session run by Michelle Brewer at GCC in May/June 2018.

Apparently it's available on YouTube.

"It's really hard to tell a human being on this earth what they are..."

Mr Lue is getting emotional.

"Human being on this earth"