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

It's intriguing that Hochhauser uses a piece of evidence in which the clerk admits that the work AB was being offered wasn't appropriate to her level of seniority. They were nice about it, but at the end of the day the work was too junior. For what reason? How do they explain it?

Hochhauser now says AB clearly hadn't generated enough of a reputation for herself. So we can see the direction of his questioning: she wasn't well-regarded so that's why she didn't get good cases.

"you are not a shy person - you would have said in words of one syllable -" this annoys me so much! I have had this - people think I am so forthright because I say anything at all - but they have no idea the extent to which women censor themselves all the time WHILE DISGUISING THE EFFORT FOR THE COMFORT OF OTHERS

Judge asking why Journalists have still not received the bundle.

From what was said by the EJ in Maya's case, we're now in the time when it was very broadly estimated we could expect to see a decision.

Is he really going back and forth between accusing her of not speaking up and accusing her of "berating" one of the clerks?

'From what was said by the EJ in Maya's case, we're now in the time when it was very broadly estimated we could expect to see a decision.'

Yes, it's got to be soon.

Amazing how he can temper his tone when the judge wants help, but he almost forgot himself then and had to moderate his tone sharpish.

It's all part of the game

Did he call her 'my love' and correct himself to 'madam'?

I wasn't listening but it's more likely he started to say, "My Lady", which is what he would call a female High Court Judge.

Surely BC will be able to go to earlier years and examine working practices and show that this way of calendar marking has not been to her detriment before?

That makes more sense, Marcia - thank you.

I thought he was about to say m'lud and then corrected himself to Madam.

As a side note, I'd hate to have a job where I get called Madam.

If I'm honest I'm not sure of what I make of today. I can't get a sense of how much what AB experienced was outside the normal parameters of what the clerking practice might be in a barristers' chambers, especially when taking into account criminal practice, quiet spells, and the impact that absences for illness might have had. I don't know how the EJ and the other panel members might get a proper insight into this.

Poor Allison. The door bell just rang.

Hope that's a massive bunch of flowers or a great Amazon package.

That's a good point, surely if this is something all barristers experience from time to time there should be evidence in previous years that they could use as evidence, but they haven't done that.

In terms of the film, this section is quite dull. We could do with a tasteless rainbow unicorn to inject a bit of light relief.

If I'm honest I'm not sure of what I make of today. I can't get a sense of how much what AB experienced was outside the normal parameters of what the clerking practice might be in a barristers' chambers, especially when taking into account criminal practice, quiet spells, and the impact that absences for illness might have had. I don't know how the EJ and the other panel members might get a proper insight into this.

Yes, I feel this too. I don't know what the norms are re this.

Haha. I think I typed tasteful but maybe not

Freudian slip? 😄

Yes AH is really labouring this point.

Ahh, AH has just introduced AB's case, involving a conspiracy, is a "conspiracy theory". Just to lodge into the minds of the ET.

'I can't get a sense of how much what AB experienced was outside the normal parameters of what the clerking practice might be in a barristers' chambers, especially when taking into account criminal practice, quiet spells, and the impact that absences for illness might have had. I don't know how the EJ and the other panel members might get a proper insight into this.'

It's tough to understand what was happening, but the comparator would be how much income her peers were able to secure during that time, what sort of trials they were successfully allocated to by the clerks, and through what process.

Have I just watched too much Crown Court or when AH keeps repeating "conspiracy theory", would opposing council be able to say, objection, your honour, leading the jury or suchlike? (Obv madam not your honour, here). There are not many/no objections are there?

the comparator would be how much income her peers were able to secure during that time, what sort of trials they were successfully allocated to by the clerks, and through what process

That would be good but I'm assuming that this kind of evidence hasn't been submitted by AB/BC.