Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 8

[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

Thread 6 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4550451-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-6

Thread 7 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4551757-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-7

Nancy Kelley ringing to tell them all to shut it down now

Finished until it resume tomorrow at 9.30am.

AH was cutting up at the end, clearly wanted his G&T. 😂

Don’t forget Bagpuss

I apologise for delurking and not contributing something far more knowledgeable and insightful.

A PP mentioned whether “Mister” was an insult. In my lawyering days, Mr or Mrs was how a Barrister would address a Solicitor in Court. A Solicitor would address a Barrister as “my learned friend”. QC to QC - the emphasis might be seen as a bit of an insult.

Witching hour. Along the lines of
BC - As Mr Hochhauser said in his re-examination earlier (smiles).
AH - There was no re-examination earlier!

Could any knowledgeable posters here give any information on something I have been wondering about not the lip balm although I am also thinking about that now

If they did decide to settle (as mentioned up thread) is it possible to do that at any stage in the proceedings? From just reading here, i can't imagine they are in any way pleased with the way things are going. Surely to God they've realised by now they've fucked up technical legal term and want to "cut their losses"? Even if they are unable to accept they've fucked up, this must be doing immense damage to their reputation?

Yes AH, that's not fair. 😂

Good lord, a whole 14 pp since this morning!

With this talk of the famous Ben... would like to see a picture of him... asking for a friend 😉

I'm just wondering if part of the issue here is that GCC are receiving messages about supposed transphobia from Stonewall, the initial (absurd) Maya ruling and the ETBB simultaneously that really made them think that AB would be classed as a bigot in the brave new world?

Quite possibly. The difficulty that I'm having with this line of argument is that GCC clearly and proudly presents itself as a collection of Key Opinion Leaders who are fearless in their pursuit of truth and who prize integrity above all: Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum.

They're putting up the senior people responsible for upholding this culture both within their own practice and profession as well as within GCC.

And this tribunal is opening up the basis for those beliefs. Both about these truly admirable individuals and how they have behaved as a loose aggregation of people who share the same passion and values for the law and how it is experienced by underserved communities.

I get Hertfordshire vibes for Ben's accent. Or possibly west of London

A Support G&T ?

(The Support Twix is a familiar concept in my house)

On BC LinkedIn, he says he attended Stratford upon Avon. Grammar school, followed by Birmingham University

@ifIwerenotanandroid

Thanks, I will try to find that clip.

I believe the parties could settle at just about any point WeBuiltCisCityOnSexistRoles, for example now. However, to settle, it would require that both sides have something to offer that would satisfy the other side. At this point, with much of the money spent, what could GCC offer AB to make her drop her claim? It would need to be a very clear statement of wrong doing and there is no way GCC would feel able to offer that. It would make them look terrible and it would cause a mutiny internally at having walked into this omnishambles only to have to grovel to make it stop.

1. Bagpuss is after my time. I'm old.
2. John Cleese is a barrister in some sketch or other, in which he's rude to another barrister & is instructed by the judge to refer to the other one as 'my learned friend'. JC refuses on the grounds that, "He's not learned & he's not my friend."😂

Absolutely. I couldn't contribute as much financially as I would have liked to, but I still feel proud to have contributed, even if in a small way, to this. It's worth every single penny as it's just such a hugely important issue for all women, as well as showing our support and solidarity for Allison.

Plus the sheer amount raised is so heart warming (not the right word but hopefully people know what I mean?) All the women standing behind Allison

For fuck sake I just dropped my support carrot cake all over my pyjama top.

oldsquare.co.uk/people/ben-cooper-qc/

From what I've seen of him in action for Maya and Allison, the quotes are accurate

He's on Linked In! (with a picture). He's also here . (Not sure which is the most up-to-date photo though)

Stratford-on-Avon for school, University of Birmingham afterwards.

How many hours prep does it take to do one hour of cross-examination, I wonder. Reading the bundle, there is so much repetition, so much rubbish, so many fonts. I also spotted the word 'uppease' [sic] which would make me cry if I was reading it as a witness.

Ha I thought I detected a Midlands twang in BC's voice!

A PP mentioned whether “Mister” was an insult. In my lawyering days, Mr or Mrs was how a Barrister would address a Solicitor in Court. A Solicitor would address a Barrister as “my learned friend”. QC to QC - the emphasis might be seen as a bit of an Insult

No, a solicitor is known as “my friend” rather than “my learned friend”. Barristers and solicitors are known as Miss or Mr Surname (and more recently, Ms or Mrs too, although many female barristers who are married continue to call themselves Miss in court). So Mr would not be an insult at all. As you have heard, all parties in the case call each other Mr/Ms or whatever.