Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 3

[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

On the first page underneath where you put your screen name, select the video and mic that are not crossed out (top option), 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)

Thread 1
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

Thread 2

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4542466-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-2

Anyone else having trouble seeing the proceedings? I've logged in and out, but just get a blank screen where the video should be and no audio. I can see my user name in the bar on the left-hand side and my camera and mic are on when I connect (and then I swiftly turn them off).

AB is citing her because she needs to in order to get justice. She is clear that KE is not to blame.

There are two settings. The camera and mic at the first log in screen are the tribunal video and audio.

At the second stage the camera and mic can be selected as none.

And anyone who's ever had any contact however peripheral with a barristers' chambers knows that the clerks know everything and discuss everything!

Absolutely, Penguin. As soon as their backs are turned!

Anyone else get the sense that giving Allison the opportunity to withdraw her allegation had a slightly misogynistic 'be kind' air about it. As if to say 'look at this poor girl, what you're doing to her, how can you be so unkind?' I thought Allison's responses recognising the position KE was in, and what would have been influencing her, was very clear and actually very compassionate.

I'm hoping this is an indication of how poor GCC's case is. Pointing a waggy finger at Allison for naming a lowly female clerk among those people she accuses of working together to force her out. She had to name all those involved in trying to reduce her income.

Absolutely. And Judge Goodman, who has been in the law for many decades, will be fully aware of the dynamics in chambers and the clerks' room.

Just checking in to make sure I don't lose this thread.

Thanks for the new thread.

Yes, I don't know what they're playing at. It would make me think twice about sending work their way.

Pmk

Hope it's going well for Allison today.

Thanks for the new thread.

What is the "Garden Court Bundle"?

So many problems with all the different bundles and witness statements. Just release them FFS.

Apparently a very secret bundle that we can't see.

It's really sad to see the record of a breakdown of relationships here.

No one knows Nauticant and we aren't supposed to ask either...

The breakdown of relationships is pretty heartbreaking, I agree, tabby, that must have been so hard for all involved.

I thought the same, Pluvia. One would expect counsel's first and last points to be their 'best points' . I expect there's a name for it but basically a version of a 'shit sandwich' hiding the crappy stuff in the middle. This is really weak and he's leading on it.

And all over something that should be nothing more than a matter of personal opinion and law as made in a democratic society. This is an entirely unnecessary conflict.

Initially, it does seem weak, the facts speak for themselves. If you look at how many primary clerking's she had in 2018 and 2019, there is a clear detriment.

Seems like the interest in the hearing is gaining momentum. I think there are around 250 watching today.

Maybe the angle he’s taking re the clerk is an attempt to make Allison look bad to a wider audience and enable TRAs to spread mud.

It might be too early but it's interesting that the clerks statements and defendents' lawyers are not putting forward an alternative explanation for why the good work stopped coming. If there was one wouldn't that be front and centre? They are saying the clerking didn't change, but ignoring the loss of income. Something must have changed surely?

They are relying on Allison's lack of specific evidence eg an email exchange saying 'stop sending good cases to AB'. So it will come down to whether she has proved on a balance of probabilities that the loss of income resulted from the chambers dislike of her public statements. But without being able to say exactly who said what and who did what maybe it won't be enough.