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

‘Each and every one of us is being sued.’

That’s inevitable when they work in this sort of organisation - the alternative is that it becomes acceptable for people to be discriminated against.

Apologies if this has been said already, but just to note who Rajiv Menon QC is: Joint Head of Chambers at GCC.
www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/rajiv-menon-qc/sao

AH complaining BC is spending 4 minutes on a subject - BC notes AH spent over an hour on the same subject

BC having a pop at AH for interrupting, wasting time.

Blah blah poor me

Ooh, BC has unearthed the anger of GCC members against Allison.

Touche, Ben!

Sorry, just going back to SK. He's a witness because he was on the STAG. How would his relationship with Stonewall be described then if not an employee? Was the STAG an interested stakeholders group? Was the group to advise Stonewall? In which case why would anyone on it have direct contact with GCC? Or were they to advise the likes of GCC in which case surely they do talk on behalf of SW?

Of course they are angry. Nobody wants to be sued. But they are trained lawyers - they know this is how she has to proceed and they know the implications of further subjecting her to victimisation.

AH keeps butting in ... with objections

Everything else aside, Mr Menon really does have a lovely speaking voice.
AH objecting to everything

I wonder how often barristers get brought to tribunals as respondents and not just as barristers? It must be really surreal for them to be 'in the witness box' for a change rather than asking the questions.

But how would they know it wasn't urgent?

RM is coming across as arrogant and grumpy - not a good look I would have said

Menon is coming across as arrogant. Don't think he's doing himself any favours.

I think everyone knows that RM did not get an indepth legal assessment to support the conclusions of his report.

No matter how loudly he says he doesn’t accept he got the law wrong, he either did or he didn’t.

Yes, I agree, EJ - 'let's let Mr Cooper get on with it'.

Hochhauser has the right hump, throwing down his pen and crossing his arms.

So LF was full off - poor me, I was busy, I was kind to Allison she shouldn't have done this

And now RM does the same

What a bunch of toxic eejits

More so than most other men of comparable seniority and professional standing?

I think he's coming across reasonably well in the terms of what that means for GCC.

Yes, I think more so.

You are all painting wonderful word pictures here! Keep it up

And it may be comparable to other men but I can't imagine the tribunal will like this tone

Do you think GCC are angry with Michelle brewer et al for dropping them in this mess? Or is it just the victim of discrimination they are angry with