Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 6

[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

Thread 5 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4548160-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-5

My MN bookmarks are up the spout today as well 🙁

I love that!!

What happened in June 2020 that might have prompted him to write up his notes?

Could it be that at that time, Stonewall was panicking about what they wanted to disclose/not disclose? In AB's witness statement she says they committed to providing full disclosure by 15 June, and that they never did.

He was part of the STAG and posted on the Wall about Allison Bailey and was in contact with Michelle Brewer, a barrister at GCC at least a few times.

Why is SK being questioned? Doesn't work for Stonewall?

Presumably because if they can blame Shaan for the whole thing then Stonewall can get off?

Oh, a neat intervention there by BC to get Stonewall to lift their resistance to providing a document requested at an earlier stage.

Thanks Idisagree

I'm probably being really thick, but why are these notes so significant?

Good point from BC too, where is this document in the disclosure?

I think the document is significant because the witness is saying they wrote the minutes of the meeting based on those notes, but don't actually remember a lot of the meeting. The notes would be a much more contemporaneous record of the meeting than the later written record.

What's usual with disclosure? I have the impression that SW have been quite obstructive in this, but this may or may not be a reasonable assumption.

why are these notes so significant?

As I understand it, they're critical to understanding who was the key mover in the complaints coming from Stonewall/STAG/Knan, Knan or Michelle Brewer. GCC are claiming it was effectively all at Knan's initiative.

I think to see where the direction came from, SK or MB supporting complaining to GCC about AB.

Presumably is there also a question that the notes were rewritten to reflect a preferred reality after the whole Allison Bailey thing kicked off (or am I getting my timeline wrong?)

I am totally convinced MNHQ got the Challenors in to do the latest site development. Only TRAs could make it this bad. Also reckon they did the tech for the tribunal

GCC are claiming it was effectively all at Knan's initiative.

Is Stonewall fine with this, since they're disowning Knan? I would have expected it would help them a lot if Brewer was the one pushing it, but their barrister didn't seem very interested.

Got all excited then. Thought they were calling Mr Menno as a witness 😁

American. That’s interesting.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that this guy is a really good barrister.

What is Rajiv Menon's role in this

I'm anticipating trench warfare with BC up against Menon.

Oh very interesting.

That's my sense of it too.

I would welcome a Mr Menno helping of sparkle with a musical interlude.

Mr Menon is yet another impressive professional so I'm fascinated as to where this evidence and further scrutiny will go.

Are the notes the notes from which the meeting notes were made or are they just the circulated meeting notes and why did they resist disclosure of them?

These meeting notes were made months after the meeting took place from memory? Seriously? Surely no-one is buying that.