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

I think they only have leave to appeal on a technical point of law.

Thank you @SpindleInTheWind

Why does it take so long to be published? It feels a bit ridiculous, especially if the finding of one appeal may set a precedent for the other.

Claudia at this level they don't set precedent for other courts, only if it's appealed to the next level. But it must influence employment practice, because the judgements must eventually find their way to hr professionals etc.

It ends on 27th May apparently.

Other judgements have been published so i assume this one will be.

X post!

Unless I have misunderstood and the appeal cannot also set a precedent (?)

What strikes me about this case is there are no many different groupings and people with potentially different interests. There is probably a very complicated multi dimensional strategic game going on behind the scenes. Stonewall versus GCC but then STAG versus stonewall. - and individual barristers versus each other. Do you think the fact that GCC did not settle (or move out the way) could be the outcome of a weird game of chicken

RM finished giving evidence, now Maya Sikand.

Ooh. I didn't expect her to look like this.

Maya Sikand looks like a figure of integrity who at least tried to do right, and this could be a turning point, good or bad.

Why does it take so long to be published?

A well-written decision for a drawn-out case is a hugely complicated document that has to reflect the written evidence, the witness testimony, resolving conflicts in those two, and the law, and it will be pored over in the greatest detail by lawyers for the parties who will be looking to find a chink in the reasoning. If there is a chink then there's a chance it will be overturned by a superior court. In this case the decision also has to reflect the contributions of all of the members of the panel.

Fuck sake, it is always AH causing an echo. MOVE THE SPEAKER AWAY FROM THE MIC, it is not difficult.

AH has turned off his mic and the hideous echo disappears. People have been saying on these threads that that should be tried for a week or more.

The funniest time was when he went very muffled and it turned out that he had his papers over his microphone.

The funniest time was when he went very muffled and it turned out that he had his papers over his microphone.

Ahhhhh - memories! 😂

Are Maya and Ben sitting at opposite ends of the same room?

there is a reason why headsets are used for remote meetings.
even cheap phone ones give better quality and less ambient noise distractions.

😂

Could be, we will have to listen out for the support Wren. 😁

As I said before, if these barristers are willing to wear a stupid wig in court, I can't see why they can't wear a headset, especially when it makes the proceedings go more smoothly.

@purplesequins You mean "earmuffs" 😂

I quite like her. Let's see how this goes.

Is she allowed a big mug of stuff? I thought it was water only?

I'm struggling to get on today. Hope I don't miss her. I'll give it another go.

AH was sipping on a cup of tea last week, but he wasn't speaking.

they could have those integrated in the wig.

dh is using dc gaming 'helmet' today because he can't find his wireless ear buds.

She just seems very open in some of the asides she's making. '3.05 a.M.? Judy clearly working all night then.'