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

Monica Dolan would be great as EJ Goodman - she's a great actress.

No, I think this is the truth. It doesn’t mean they aren’t liable.

Who? BE or LT?

LT does seem like a nice bloke.

LT.

Ok so is this appropriate? Raising the vulnerability of someone else in public?

Apart from his junior status, do we know why David is 'vulnerable'?

No we don't I don't think. This is the first I've heard but I haven't read the bundle or LT's witness statement.

Yes, for all that the cab rank rule exists, it's pretty naive not to understand that activist lawyers exist too. Some of them don't do a particular type of work because they ethically disagree with it, and do choose to work in a particular field because they see that as a way to advance the cause. I don't know whether that's the case for BC or not, but the idea that anyone in a case like this could just as well be acting for the other side doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

*vulnerable does not appear in the witness statement

Jackie Weaver to play EJ?

That would be excellent!

I was thinking Frances de la Tour for EJ.

Exactly, what does vulnerable mean? Is this more weaponising fragility? Also, I don't think you'd get very far at the Bar if you were truly vulnerable, as it's a tough old world!

How these barristers keep all these characters bin their heads when they presumably don't know them and they are trying to piece together events from a few documents, is pretty impressive.

I know I quite often switched off when my mum was moaning on about all the people at work that I didn't know.

LT is repeating again and again that emails need to be interpreted on the basis of David Neale of GCC being extremely vulnerable.

sneakily trying to make it closed

I don't think it is sneaky. If the colleague is in any way vulnerable then it's absolutely not appropriate for any of us to know that or details of his private life and I'm amazed that this is all being brought up for the first time now.

That's because anyone who has a court case related to GC issues these days chooses to instruct him (due to Maya's case).

And Jane Russell?

I didn't like EJ's comment there that they have to take at face value that witnesses who received emails either didn't read them or didn't take in their contents.

Vulnerable barrister. Vulnerable Head of Trans Inclusion. They don't seem like roles being, as they are, very public facing, that would be ideal for vulnerable people.

I’m interested to hear how he explains that email.

LT's evidence is that he was worried that David Neale was going to resign because of his extreme vulnerability.

If it's relevant then it shouldn't surely have been dealt with in evidence that could have been redacted.

Should've

My phone is annoying me. You do not know what I mean better than I do

Will David appear as a witness?

Okay, his position is ‘I fucked up but for reasons.’