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

You'd hope another chambers would take her on, especially if she wins.

Are barristers ever 'independent'?

She's a tenant there and in effect self employed. So she could find another chambers to take her on or work in a slightly different way.

I should imagine that win or lose she won't want to go back now. The relationships are too broken.

Just hopping onto say thanks for the last couple of days reportage, insights, side funnies and links, much appreciated.

I know Allison is a criminal barrister, but can she swap areas of law? It seems to me she would have had to do a lot of research around the law in this case, and perhaps she might be a star for upcoming trials.

I know nothing about these matters, so humour me.

criminal law, not an actual criminal...

It sounds like she's very good at it and has 20 years experience of it so she would have to work her way up again in a different branch. It's like saying can a cardiologist become a brain surgeon. Yes they could but they'd need a lot of retraining.

Such a good image though! RW in charge of the orange squash orders ...

Seriously between this and the Wagatha hearing my cup is seriously runneth over.

This is incredibly lazy but I have had no time to watch or keep up with the thread/tweets. Anyone fancy summarising the last couple of days in a couple of short sentences?!

I see them more as the bod who gives out the half time oranges, but then one would also be in charge of the cutting up of said oranges and if the mess of the bundle is anything to go by the oranges would not be in neat quarters.

Yes, I can't help wondering with various GC(C) witnesses whether they would hold the same position now if it wasn't for having to defend the chamber's line and prevent having to face a possible payout.

Beautifully and painstakingly prepared orange quarters, courtesy of SW and its crack legal team.

TBH (and I have only read the commentary here and on TT). I think GCC were lazy. They were looking for quick wins and being in SW's good books provided them with a quick win and something they could try and monetise. They did not know - and probably did not care- what it meant on the ground and certainly did not think beyond the nice ltitle web badge they could put on their website and the possible money it brought in from sone potential future clients. They signed up to it without really understanding what they were doing and when challenged they had an Oh Fuck moment and a then a bunch of other of fuck moments but thought that it would be quicker and easier to lean on AB rather than to step back and review their actions. They were afraid of the fallout from SW and the TRAs and took the easy option.

They were also suffiently arrogant enought to think that because they work in the law that they would be untouched by the law. I am a lawyer and my former law firm had similar thoughts and now that they are on their 3rd constructive dismissal case brought against them (I was too tired and not brave enough to bring one myself) they might well be disabused of the notion.

In short they were arrogant cynical fools. And it has come home to bite their collective arses.

And because I am typing one-handed with my own support cat in my lap I have made many typos. Many many typos.

but then one would also be in charge of the cutting up of said oranges and if the mess of the bundle is anything to go by the oranges would not be in neat quarters

Being fruit-cutter-upper for Stonewall is a no-win gig to be fair. 🍐

That crushed orange makes me laugh every time I scroll past it.

Makes me think of half time and all the old sucked peel left afterwards. Ugh.

Work has completely ruined my day today and I need to continue tonight so I can't catch up on todays proceedings until tomorrow. Hope it all went well.

Ah! That makes sense.

It’s not a great look for GCC to sign up to something that may have been a bit fuzzy on the actual law, what with them being barristers and all. Oh and possibly failing to follow due process in an investigation… And having their treatment of a black lesbian called out as questionable…

QCs are used to being the authoritative voice that people defer to (as anyone who has had a con with one will know!!) being cross examined on their conduct, rather than being able to pontificate, must be hell for them.

Is there anywhere doing a roundup? I'm not able to keep up with these threads but would like to know what's happening (although I will miss the sarcasm and comments of these threads!)

I just can't get over how unprofessional everyone from GCC has been during their testimony. All of them, behaving worse than toddlers. I'm embarrassed for them.

I've never attended an Employment Tribunal or something similar to this.

I try to remember to temper/caveat my opinions with my awareness of my ignorance. I know that these various legal practitioners who are being examined about their submissions know more about what's effective in such contexts than I do. They must have prepped their testimony with knowledgeable colleagues and rehearsed it, so they must have confidence in their strategy.

tribunal tweets have a write up of the day

I believe that the witness statements are only available when they are actually giving evidence. Links to the witness statement are posted at the start of the session, but if you join it late you need to ask in the chat box for someone repost the link because you can't see links that were posted in the chat before you logged in.

The link to the Tribunal Tweets roundup on their Substack site are here, although they don't appear instantaneously so the Twitter feed is better for following live as opposed to catching up the next day. tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bailey-vs-stonewall-and-garden?s=w