Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 4

[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)

Witness Statement of Allison Bailey: allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Witness-Statement-of-Allison-Bailey.pdf

Kirrin Medcalf's complaint to GCC: allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/PH-Bundle-pp-331-2-Stonewall-Complaint.pdf

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

Thread 3 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4545725-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-3?

I used to be a barrister's clerk.

It's one thing asking a senior barrister to do a tiny case as a favour. It's another to limit their work entirely in that way.

The clerk's job is to help develop a Barrister's career, not just fill the diary with whatever scraps are there.

'The clerk's job is to help develop a Barrister's career, not just fill the diary with whatever scraps are there.'

Indeed. And putting people forward on lists of eight or more possible advocates, with no 'pitch' for why any one of those barristers would be better, knowing that at least one of those people is likely to be subject to the effects of ingrained sexism and racism (she's a black woman, the rest are not) is certainly acting in a fashion in which they must have known they weren't developing her career.

@MsMarvellous . With your specialist knowledge of clerking, how do you think this is going for Allison?

You should receive an email from MNHQ if you have a 'strike' recorded against you @Pluvia , so if you haven't had the email don't be saying your farewells just yet!

General point, not addressed to anyone in particular: This is a very important case and very important series of threads. I'm sure the usual suspects have their reporting fingers hovering and I expect MNHQ are keeping a close eye too. Let's try to avoid posting anything that might get it taken down.

I know AH has to bring these little cases up, but they all know the score and to keep badgering AB about it is annoying and boring.

‘Exactly @tabbycatstripy is that how he built his career?’

Maybe in the first decade that’s how it goes and it’s not too bad, because for smaller cases you don’t need to demonstrate affinity quite as much as you for longer and more complicated cases. But certainly for something like this (a big case with lots of reputational meat on the table) Hochhauser wasn’t chosen because someone said ‘these are the people available’.

Sorry, not trying to be thread police

I agree, also we are better than that, don't stoop to their level. We have truth and reality on our side.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10804559/Stonewall-tribunal-paused-witness-support-dog-evidence-against-Allison-Bailey.html

Is the EJ also a former barrister? I wonder how well AH’s tactics will work if she is.

Although I can't see what was objectionable in @Pluvia post.

Added the Mail's take, but as you were. I do not mean to derail. (Though the Mail's ever reliable picture editor seems to be doing his best.)

Quite honestly, it's hard to say. It's very difficult to show loss, although not impossible.

How you cut the figures, and how you interpret the "value" of work can give wildly different results.

What I will say, is that if Allison's team can show that not only was the financial value of the work given to her after these events lower, and that the quality of the work was also lower or not appropriate for her call, then it would demonstrate to me a dereliction on the part of the clerks.

And don't for a second think the clerks wouldn't know. They would have to work to prevent Allison being instructed.

We had bad barristers who clients would not instruct for serious work because they didn't like the barrister as a person. Allison is not some of those, I would expect someone of her calibre to have been sought after by clients. So for her work to drop off would mean actively making her unavailable, it would be a specific act. It could only be done with knowledge of the people who ran chambers and ran the diary. It must have been "known"

And what we can’t see are all the emails where AB wasn’t put forward, when she was as qualified as or more qualified than the people who were.

Nothing wrong in your post, Pluvia. Some people are obviously being very sensitive.

I wish this case was receiving more coverage too: it's a really important one because so many organisations have invested heavily in Stonewall's advice. The ramifications are huge.

I will stand up a little bit for the coverage of the Wagatha Christie case because it is very interesting legally, not least for the issue of whether the Sun could or should be obliged to disclose its sources.

Thank-you @Pluvia - we need light on this matter.
You present (with clarity) your views on a matter essential to women and leave us to make up our own minds.

This is what Mumsnet is for - surely?

Oh nonsense is it "exceptionally offensive" Most barristers are made of tougher stuff than that!

And in any case, silks are "leading counsel' rather than "senior counsel".

Sorry to bark back to yesterday but with all the discussion of multiple people in the room, dog and possibly cat, sounds of tea making etc can someone tell me where "the room" is? Is it at KM's home or lawyer offices or somewhere else?

I think she came from a solicitor background before being appointed to the judging gig. That's based on the press release that accompanied her appointment.

It was a room at IO's Office, just down the hall from IO and RW.

I'm seriously thinking of doing a law degree so I can be a thorn in the sides of as many people as possible.

@SpindleInTheWind yes she was a solicitor so won't have been clerked. A shame for Allison that she's not a barrister judge really.

'Bark back' 😆😆

I only just noticed the pun! 

Thanks @ickky

You would have to be spectacularly incompetent to put anything in writing regarding a conspiracy to deprive AB of work. Everyone knows it would have been a nod and a wink.