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

'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.'

Without an alternative explanation for why her income dropped so substantially (when other barristers' didn't), and in conjunction with the very clear hostility that existed towards her in chambers following her protected acts, it might be enough.

I hope the tribunal will be persuaded that the unfortunate sequence of events is, on the balance of probabilities, unlikely to have been mere co-incidence and that there was human agency involved.

That's the balancing act the tribunal panel has to do - decide between two possibilities:

1 It's all just a big fat co-incidence and Allison only has herself to blame

2 The Chambers passed less lucrative work her way after becoming pissed off with her

BC is such a gentleman.

Yes. Hopefully. But does she have to show whose human agency?

I guess of the two narratives - complete coincidence and no change of clerking, v a general culture of hostility to AB and clerks deciding to send cases to someone else instead- the second is more persuasive. But the defendent doesn't actually to have persuade anyone of an explanation, only Allison does.

Anyway we don't know. I'll stop speculating!

That was quite a revealing little exchange, wasn't it, Tabby? Sounded as if they were trying to reassure each other to my ears.

Given the tone and nature of some of the eyebrow-raising remarks by some members of chambers which they evidently felt ok about committing to writing in black and white, I think on a balance of probabilities there will be many more that weren't. And anyone who has ever spent any time in any workplace anywhere knows that.

Well there's nothing posited by AH that has made me change my mind about the accuracy and veracity of Allison's statement. It all seems nitpicking and insubstantial.

AH's constant reminders to Allison that she's on oath are so insulting. It's one thing to try and scare a member of the public in the witness box with the implication that they're about to expose a massive porkie, quite another to use that game on a barrister.

I agree, Pluvia. I'm only following on TT.

What did BC say?

Mr Hochhauser and Ms Russell weren't on mute during the break and was talking away. Everyone was listening but BC jumped in to let them know because he's a gent.

AH and JR's mic wasn't muted and they were chatting informally, so BC immediately told them that we could hear them.

All law seems to be practised on the basis of tactics like trying to undermine or otherwise rile up the witnesses to get them to agree to something that supports your client.

I don't think it covers the practice of law in glory.

I think she's doing brilliantly.

My only direct experience has been in planning law and it's the same there.

In my mind, the practice of law should be about truth. Not manipulation.

I'm don't think AH claiming AB is in it for the money is a sensible path to go down.

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.

I thought that about one of the more ridiculous exchanges with the Stonewall lawyers. But in either instance if they're posturing for the gallery it can't speak well of the strength of their case.

AH thinks Allison should've brought a case without quantum?!

Now AH trying to say that AB is only motivated by money and not principle.

Saying she has half a million, as if that is hers to spend!

What's the issue with the GCC bundle?

Oof. Exchange re money vs principle - anyone would think AH was deliberately giving AB the opportunity to speak on that point... What on earth is he playing at?! Seems very unwise.

Glad he did, though. 😀

at the end of AB's cross by IO last Thursday, AH jumped in to shower praise on AB as to how brilliantly she handled all the jumping around between documents. I thought it a bit unecessary & a bit smarmy & patronising at the time. Now I see why he did that - bit of a set up to all the bundle jumping around today and his condescending reprimanding tone.

You're doing a fabulous job Allison!!

Making her out to be a grifter when she is obviously a woman of great principle is very unwise. Disagree with her by all means, but she's obviously not after money or she would just have stayed quiet about her opinions.

Obviously if there were a conspiracy, they are not likely to put it in writing and the natural consequences of that is that AB doesn't get work. I think that is a very fair and accurate summary of what has happened. What other explanation is there if the other barristers had a lot more work sent their way?

AH is acting like he's got a big smoking gun! I wonder what it is?

It's probably about money. He really needs to be careful going down that route. She's already clear she wasn't getting lucrative work, to her detriment.