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

JustWaking posted some interesting stuff relating to this earlier - I've been reading through the Crony Beliefs essay in the breaks. Good examples of the reasons why people stick to their guns even when it seems to fly in the face of all common-sense and good practice.

I've just managed to get access. MS is so much more hesitant than I imagined.

It would feel difficult for these people to have concealed their emotions at work and that surprises me.

This entire process has been illuminating about the sense that one's own moral compass makes it impossible that one could ever err in some matters.

We need to be vigilant about ourselves and ready to reflect. It's too easy to fall into believing our own CVs and that our achievements put us above any criticism.

Thank you all for these threads, they make a great commentary. Would GCC witnesses' angry reaction to having their collective self image questioned the same sort of institutional response that gets whistleblowers vilified?

We're back to the Cotton Ceiling. MS appears to view it as a minefield.

EJ: “Leave it, leave it!”

This is like a Friday night in Manchester.

MS (to BC): I don't have a side. Don't say I've got a side. I don't know what you mean by that.

C'mon lads - we've all had a drink...

MS has NO SIDE, she doesn't know what that means (I think it means GCC).

Gosh.... this witness is being very cagey.

😂

Slight distraction & off on a tangent - there's another trial (I think US based) which is kicking off & there's been some discussion on online access to statements. Decision made is no access online permitted & anyone (journos) who needs access can get that by attending the London office of (I think) solicitors involved.

Link to tweet

"I made a representation to the Judge Snelson that I am unable to attend the London office of Simmons & Simmons to view #Hutton trial documents today - needed to aid reporting. Judge Snelson refused to progress the request saying "we cannot have a running debate on online access".
"

I wonder if it's this case, or online trials in general, which are creating a demand for access the courts haven't had to deal with in general, or increased numbers (as in this case) who are using chat to discuss the trial(a) as though they're watching TV drama?

This tweet starts the thread on the trial which is "the live employment tribunal case of Jane Hutton versus the #USS pension scheme. Hutton - a former trustee diretor of USS - is taking action for unfair dismissal. "

These lawyers all get quite tetchy around 4.15 don't they?

There’s definitely a need for a chocolate break here.

BC is very calm!

EJ getting involved again to tell the witness to answer the questions, and let their own barrister do the barristering.

MD got really annoyed with that. Huffing and puffing through the answers.

MS (to BC): I don't have a side. Don't say I've got a side. I don't know what you mean by that.

That was so strange. It was very obvious what he meant.

They sure do. I told my husband that proceedings always get juicy around 16:00.

Yay, we have the traditional "sexing-up" of the report as a result of external pressure.

Yes, I wish they would carry on as it would be revealing.

MS being asked about accepting the "sexing-up" amendments from Harrison, and.MS.is.practically.speaking.one.single.word.at.a.time.

Almost as though she knows it's nearly half four, and EJ suggested that would be a good time to finish.

It sure sounds like she copy/pasted. 🤨

I was a barrister for 20+ years (but not now).
In my chambers "keep free" in the diary meant not in court please (but you can ask me if desperate) whilst "not available" meant I am doing something non work related and don't bother asking me...

BC's argument seems to be that MS was the person to write the report, MS was supposed to acquaint herself with all of the relevant facts, and to the extent that she did so, she then let the conclusions of the report be hardened by people, McGahey and Harrison, who had not studied the relevant facts.