Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 5

[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 please choose a non inflammatory/offensive name, everyone can see it in the chat - This is a court room, please behave accordingly.

The court chat function is there for official court purposes, not for observers, please don't use it unless you have a technical issue.

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, senior counsel - barrister for SW
RW = Robin White junior counsel to SW - assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, senior counsel - barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell junior counsel to GC - 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

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

Thread 4 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4546945-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-4

Sorrynotsorry you already demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about employment tribunals etc 😂

Also, RMW will NOT have been responsible for producing any bundles. That will have been the job of the solicitor (or most likely, some poor underpaid trainee or paralegal). A junior barrister is not the admin dogsbody.

'Interpretive dance'

Yay, Allison.

Thank you. I see. I had thought that clients could speak about the case but witnesses could not. I hadn’t considered the client as also being the same as a witness.

Surely you would check them though?

Well I clearly know a bit more than “I hope a QC gives his client a red bag” and “the junior barrister in a case with a silk is the person responsible for the bundle”.
let’s wait and see if she wins, eh?

Not the job of a led junior. At all. Seriously. It will be some poor junior person at the solicitors getting shouted at for shit bundling. I’ve done it and it’s really hard, especially where you have huge volumes of evidence. It’s the stuff of nightmares when it goes wrong.

Sadly this one appears to be quite epically gone wrong.

Just so you know, I now have this stuck in my head, with the lyrics 'my bundle, your bundle, everybody move your bundle'

Thank you. I see. I had thought that clients could speak about the case but witnesses could not. I hadn’t considered the client as also being the same as a witness.

it’s only when she is giving her own evidence but yeah, during this time she is treated the same as any other witness. Otherwise there’s a strong risk that her evidence could be influenced in some way by discussions with her lawyers.

😀

Yes it has and I’m pretty sure someone will be bollocked for it but it won’t be RMW.

IANAL and know nothing about employment tribunals specifically, but I do have some experience of Tribunals.

In my experience Tribunals REALLY don't like it if Bundles are a mess. They don't like it if parties seek to save money by preparing them themselves instead of having a lawyer do it, and I imagine that they're equally if not more unimpressed if a legal person does it and it is an amateur mess no better than if the parties had DIY'd.

Furthermore, Tribunals do have some power on costs. It is categorically not "loser pays" like at court, but if one party or the other is "completely unreasonable" (my paraphrasing) then they do have some power.

I have been to a hearing where Party A wanted money off of Party B, and only got awarded 10% of what they were asking for at the end. The 90% that they were unable to recover was due the fact that it was outside of the statute of limitations, or it was money for things that Party A could not show that it had done. They were forced to pay all costs because (1) the case took longer than necessary due to an appalling bundle they prepared, and (2) because the Tribunal felt that the case they were making was almost entirely without merit.

I am sure that this won't happen, but if I was EJ I would start by telling GCC and SW that they can pay 10-20% of ABs costs to compensate her for the wasted costs as a result of a longer than necessary hearing. I would then be sorely tempted to say "your case is that you can sideline / bully AB; and your justification for that is that she is incorrect to say that biological sex is real and it matters. Not only that you are Barristers and supposed experts in LGB rights and you cannot comprehend the contents of the EA 2010, nor the idea that homosexuality is about sex not gender. I am sorry but I am making a further cost award because your case is clearly non-existent and you should never have made it, especially post-Forstater which was absolutely clear".

If that is the case Sorry, a junior member of staff (not a barrister, don't be alarmed, they are very important people!) made up a shitty, not-fit-for-purpose bundle. The barristers then received it in advance to read it and prepare. Surely the very first thing that would happen is the barrister would called the instructing solicitor to say "that bundle is shit. I will not be working with that. Get a new one made right now". And the poor staff stay up as long as it takes to make a new one?
I used to work in legal field- I can't imagine giving a barrister a crap bundle and not being pulled up.
I really don't think it was incompetence, I think it's tactical- to confuse witnesses, get Allison to mess up timeline or email trails, and basically try and fuck with the proceedings. I imagine they hoped the bundles would be kept secret, or the live stream would be refused/ turned off. I think it betrays the contempt with which they view Allison, her views and this whole case.

First witness for GCC: Leslie Thomas QC.

I meant "first witness" today, not first witness for GCC in the proceedings.

People have found the "red bag" situation confusing because they don't know the protocol - please cut them a bit of slack.

And as for "hero-worshipping" BC - well, you can't blame us for being partisan, can you?

And yes, if he'd been briefed for the other side he would have employed his skills to the best of his ability - but he wasn't briefed for the other side. He's briefed for "our" side, and certainly appears at this stage to be more competent than IO or AH.

This is going to make a brilliant film. The characters are so fascinating. So much potential for off shoots to explore their backgrounds and history.

Likeable.

Thank you for new thread. I can't follow live or on Twitter and my legal knowledge was gained mostly from This Life so this is very helpful. Glad to see the press publicising what a total shitshow this is.

@Sorrynotsorryyeah I think RMW said at the start they had produced the bundle as it was so complex - if that's wrong I apologise to RMW

I really don't think it was incompetence, I think it's tactical- to confuse witnesses, get Allison to mess up timeline or email trails, and basically try and fuck with the proceedings. I imagine they hoped the bundles would be kept secret, or the live stream would be refused/ turned off. I think it betrays the contempt with which they view Allison, her views and this whole case.

i don’t think so because they would make themselves look bad in front of the judge. It’s never a good tactical move to produce a crap bundle. If anything, it means that AB can blame any inconsistencies and confusion on the shit bundle and the judge will sympathise. And seeing as IO is the one leading, she would be be the one spotting the errors when she prepped. presumably BC and his team would also have had sight of the bundle before the hearing.

Does 'SIP' definitely mean someone is live streaming?

Where the fuck are my emojis and the formatting?! On top of the fucked up quote function this is annoying me intensely.

If the bundle had only gone to pot as additional documents had been added, I could half understand, but it's been shoddy from the start.

I built a few bundles when I was clerking when the solicitors sent something shit and my barrister had me reminder them. It's not hard, as in complex, but you do need to meticulous and pay attention to the index.

Whether it was looked over by the barrister in proper detail depends on counsel. I've had some barristers want to check the first copy to make sure it's right, and others who just say to make x copies and let you get on.

As with any job some people care more about details than others.

In this case it's an absolute shambles and everyone involved in the bundle should be ashamed of themselves for the awful admin!