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

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus sure they could be choosing to act like that, in an unprofessional manner. But it seems to me more like they are letting their mask slip, like they can't bear to questioned, to have to answer to someone else about their actions, and they are not in full control of their behaviour.

[session resumes]
[sound of cat]
EJ: sorry, it's my cat. I'll mute
[laughs]

mobile.twitter.com/DrMRFrancis/status/1130553886585044993

I’m finding that sometimes I can’t see the morning/afternoon round ups, I get a can’t reach server message. Some of them are ok but around half I have this problem. Any ideas?

I couldn’t watch it all today but both of those witnesses seemed outraged to even have to be there. They all seem to have selective memories and extraordinarily bad manners.

I have a friend whose partner is a barrister in the rough vicinity of GCC.

I was struck about 5 years ago about her frequent mentions of Stonewall in hushed and reverent terms. I can't really explain it, other than that I've never - before or since - known anyone to manage to bring a random lobbying charity into a conversation about...not that.

I was not GC at that point (am now) and just found it a bit....odd....Because she works for a management consultant whereas I've worked for years in the charity sector and know how shit flawed so many charities are.

She's not an unintelligent person so it just struck me as weird that she and the partner were so awestruck by this charity. Same as that glimpse we caught from MS earlier - IT'S STONEWALL or whatever she said.

I'm laughing heartily at SW wizard of oz unmasking, it's hilarious so call educated people have been so quick to buy up the snake oil. Education is one thing, critical thought quite another as all of the GCC witnesses have demonstrated admirably so far.

@SunnyLobelia I think you have it right. It's shocking how little attention they paid to trampling over AB because they were all so busy and didn't want to put in the effort to find out what was actually happening. Just sucking up to Stonewall to rise up their index in hope of cases being passed in their direction. I've only seen 2 Stonewall witnesses so far but I can't believe how anyone can take them seriously. The barristers themselves already seem a diverse group but I wonder how much influence the trans lawyer there had on proceedings.

Someone has written a VERY brief summary of Allison's witness statement, that summarises the alleged actions of GCC. Might be worth a read, and has refs to paras in the full witness statement if you want to delve in more detail.

improveifoa.org/2022/05/15/summary-of-key-points-in-allison-baileys-witness-statement-in-her-employment-tribunal-case-v-stonewall-and-garden-court-chambers/

Ooh that's interesting, thanks

Was interested in the talk about the ethos of GCC and wondered what chambers the barristers in this case are associated with.
It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that Ben, Ijeoma and RMW are all from Old Square Chambers whilst Hochhauser and Jane Russell are from Essex Court.
So does that mean that Ben, Ijeoma and RMW know each other well?

A useful summary.

A couple of questions, for anyone who knows how these tribunals work. WRT Allison:

Now that she’s given evidence, is she allowed to log-in and view proceedings?

is she now allowed to speak with BC? Is she allowed to give feedback re testimony from others?

so GCC and stonewall did not give full disclosure as requested in a timely manner. Is this part of her claim against them re victimisation? I’m trying to understand the significance of this in her claim against both GCC and stonewall . If not part of her claim, can the tribunal infer anything about non disclosure?

AB's claims against SW and GCC are set out in her Further Revised Amended Particulars of Claim missgoodytwoshoes. You can find it in the downloaded core bundle, which is a set of documents which can be shared, because they set out the legal framework of the case.

AB's discrimination and victimisation claims are based on her assertion that she suffered 5 detriments: (i) withholding of instructions and work by GCC, (ii) GCC's announcement that AB was under investigation, (iii) SW complaiing to GCC, (iv) GCC upholding the complaint, and (v) GCC failing to comply with subject access requests.

I have made a shorthand of referring to GCC where in the Particulars of Claim the detriments are in relation to GCC and/or the barristers of GCC (except AB).

The cross-examination of the witnesses so far by IO and AH has been to cast doubt that the detriments as set out by AB in the Particular of Claim took place. They only have to get as far as doubt because it's up to AB to prove her case.

Thank you @nauticant .

Thank you IdisagreeMrHochhauser for explanation about witching areas of law.

switching, dammit

They only have to get as far as doubt because it's up to AB to prove her case.

She will only have to prove it on the balance of probabilities not beyond reasonable doubt.

@Signalbox is right - the burden of proof is much less in civil than in criminal cases, probably because people don't end up in jail if it goes against them.

I have no meetings planned today for the first time in ages so I've sent an email asking for access. Hopefully I get in today.

This will provide a good distraction from GCSE resits for me.

Yes. In-between times, I should think that they know each other as well as colleagues in chambers ever do. It's quite common to be on opposing sides of the same case so I think that they all preserve decent working relationships and manage never to take things personally no matter how critical of each other they may seem to those of us who are unfamiliar with how politely mauling some legal proceedings can be.

From what I’ve read from tribunal tweets, in my assessment Ben Cooper seems to doing a great job on her behalf of proving the detriments . Though of course still have over a week to go and I’m not a lawyer so who knows!

I've seen her name with (Claimant) after in the observers list so would assume so.

She has been observing every day, once she had finished giving evidence, she was then allow to speak with BC, she had not been able to speak to them while giving her evidence.

I would imagine she speaks with BC to discuss and devise strategy etc.

It's good to know that Allison is now back to being involved with her case in that way, as she will be able to indicate to her team when her bullshit detector is going off, and why, during the evidence from respondants.

In an online hearing like this, I wonder what the equivalent is of her passing notes or whispering in court?

I think they have a WhatsApp group.