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

AH: I will show what happened. This is where the real money is in this claim so I will spend time on this. You have raised £500k to crowdfund this
AB: it's not about the money
AH: but you are asking for a six-figure some
AB: I am. I'm not doing this for money. You have to quantify the losses. It's difficult to quantify bc we are paid so haphazardly
EJ: you're not bringing claim for money but for principle but money is involved

At least the judge gets it.

I had to go and get lunch. Did the judge say anything about names in the chat when they restarted?

She had to raise that amount, due to their client's behaviour [and the gazillions of items in the bundle that were hapahzardly put together] and she doesn't get the money, it pays the legal team.

'She had to raise that amount, due to their client's behaviour [and the gazillions of items in the bundle that were hapahzardly put together] and she doesn't get the money, it pays the legal team.'

Yes, it's so unfair. Make the barrier to getting justice incredibly high, then, when someone gains enough public sympathy that they are able to meet it, do a nice character assassination based on the fact that they raised enough money to meet the lunatic barrier.

Can't see that pursuing the issue of the case in which there was no money for AB available may have been a shot in the foot for AH.

Still can't log in. Just getting the black screen.

I thought I might mention that if you use Amazon, you can make a donation through Amazon Smile to LGB Alliance, Allison's charity.

Are you just pressing connect without selecting a drop down option?

A comment on Twitter seems to think Allison was having a nightmare with no evidence, just conspiracy theories. I hope that's not true (I'm not able to log in to am relying on this thread and tribunal tweets, so don't get any nuance).

Just as an aside, I'm not on Twitter so I have to Google Tribunal Tweets and Google never auto fills the name, I have to type it out in full every time to find it. Sodding algorithms. It's disgraceful.

GCC says on its website of wor Andrew H:

He was recently described by Chambers UK as “The best cross-examiner in the business” who “sets the standard for dedication to the cause”
And the Legal 500 said “He can win the unwinnable cases, he can terrify the opposition with his name alone and he can make the court dance to his tune”.

'A comment on Twitter seems to think Allison was having a nightmare with no evidence, just conspiracy theories. I hope that's not true (I'm not able to log in to am relying on this thread and tribunal tweets, so don't get any nuance).'

She hasn't put her case yet. Hochhauser is pulling at threads but she's standing up to it so far (in my opinion).

And yes, he's very good.

Bugger I wish I'd remembered about Amazon, I've just bought some presents last week

GCC says on its website of wor Andrew H

Just to make clear, AH is not a member of Garden Court Chambers. He's at Essex Court in Middle Temple.

Oops sorry - that from the website of his own Chambers

A comment on Twitter seems to think Allison was having a nightmare with no evidence, just conspiracy theories. I hope that's not true (I'm not able to log in to am relying on this thread and tribunal tweets, so don't get any nuance).

There isn't a lot in the way of hard evidence. There doesn't appear to be any "smoking gun" evidence where colleagues overtly plotted to get her out. The evidence appears to be based on the fact that her work "dropped off a cliff" and being offered low quality, undesirable work rather than longer more substantial cases she had been getting before.

'There isn't a lot in the way of hard evidence. There doesn't appear to be any "smoking gun" evidence where colleagues overtly plotted to get her out. The evidence appears to be based on the fact that her work "dropped off a cliff" and being offered low quality, undesirable work rather than longer more substantial cases she had been getting before.'

They are still going to have to explain that difference in treatment.

I sense that he is on to something here.

They are still going to have to explain that difference in treatment.

Yes hopefully that's were BC will demolish their case.

AH is trying to explain the difference away by implying that AB was busy doing her "extra curricular" activities and that she had a couple of months off and that she was laid back about not having work and not raising her concerns about her how she was being clerked.

'There doesn't appear to be any "smoking gun" evidence where colleagues overtly plotted to get her out.'

But in cases of being managed out there often isn't an overt plot. It's very obvious from the evidence bundle that there was a considerable hostility to AB in the chambers. If the Heads of Chambers say they didn't instruct anyone not to give her good work, and the clerks say this didn't affect the way they clerked her, the difference in financial outcomes for her needs to be otherwise explained.

Placemarking. Thanks for all the commentary. I can't keep up!

How significant is it to AB's case that Charlie Tennent was replaced as her clerk by Luke Harvey?

Is this a situation where AB has overstated something in her witness statement that isn't fundamental and AH is using it to undermine her credibility rather than her case?

'How significant is it to AB's case that Charlie Tennent was replaced as her clerk by Luke Harvey?'

It is somewhat significant, as she uses it as an exemplar of the way in which she was subjected to detriment. However, AB wasn't aware of Harvey's experience in the criminal law, so she may have overstated the detriment, but she is still correct that Tennent has a lot more experience than Harvey.

It depends on what the court thinks about why Tennent (to all intents and purposes rather than formally) stopped clerking AB, and the extent to which the ET agrees that he did.

Yes, by the nature of what's happening it's going to be subtle isn't it?

'Yes, by the nature of what's happening it's going to be subtle isn't it?'

I won't comment on the people I've seen sending their emails, or what I think of them.