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

Yes, the financial detriment is only one. The way they treated her was appalling, humiliating and unfair even without this part of the case.

😁😁😁

I would, too!

Bingo v2 - Click on the image for the full card

The screenplay writes itself.

@nauticant and @tabbycatstripy , I presume the judge gives judgment on the 5(?) detriments individually.

So all 5 don't have to be found in favour of (sorry terrible English) for AB to "win" but perhaps to get the max amount of compensation or whatever?

Do senior barristers choose their junior if they receive a case, or do the clerks assign them one? Because if the former , i can imagine AB being affected, oh yes

The difficulty is that we can’t see whether other barristers were offered better work. Is it true that work was slow in 2019 for other members of Chambers?

I think Mr Menon's evidence had info about that. Although other members of GCC had a reduction in earnings, no-one else's drop was nearly as big as Allison's.

What we don't know is whether there was work in her area that was offered to someone else first. This clerk says her work was in a niche area. If literally no relevant work came in, it makes sense that her diary was empty. But if there was work for which she would be the go-to specialist and it was given to someone else, that would look bad. Unfortunately, I don't know if the tribunal has that info.

Me too! It's the sort of thing DH says...

DH: I had another ridiculous email from HR/outsourced lunatics today.
Me: Oh good, what did it say?
DH: I don't know. I wasn't going to waste my time on it. I could tell from the title it was nonsense, so I deleted it straight away.

Notice how BC is bringing his threads of questioning to a snappy end. CT isn't providing any answers in a way where BC is given to an opportunity to expand.

I'm still wondering whether BC will move on to questions about what was the vibe in the clerks' room about the whole mess with AB in the middle of it.

AB can win on a discrimination/victimisation case coming from each of the 5 detriments individually (so long as the discrimination/victimisation is also based on a protected characteristic), she doesn't need to win all 5 User237845. But they're very different in significance.

‘Alison calms down...’

Ooh. He’s cracking.

My understanding is that work within the Chambers as a whole was not down in 2019 to the same extent that Allison's work was down.
And BC has shown that her keep free days were average.
So the line of questioning - that AB declined some lower quality cases to her own detriment - is clearly very important.
I wonder if there is comparable data for similar level barristers.
(I may have missed this - have only just been able to log on).

@oviraptor21 there's a comparison document of keep free days and income by call somewhere in the bundle.

What is a 'return'?

It's difficult. I get the impression from this clerk (it might be the accent but that's probably unfair!) That you do have to 'get in' with the clerks in some way to really get the juicy work, help them out with some dross work, be pally with them etc. Not fair of course but basic human nature. So specifically linking it to the 'protected acts' I think is hard.

The point about taking the lower work from new solicitors first to then get the better work I do think sounds right. If we get a new client we always have to start with the crappy work first then if u do a good job on that they send the bigger stuff your way.

It feels like CT feels he is being set up as the fall guy - and maybe he is. GCC would probably rather blame clerks than take responsibility

When one barrister was booked for a hearing but can't get to it (say their existing trial overruns) so the other barrister picks it up.

The barrister who picks it up gets it as a "return"

@Lougle - where another barrister was scheduled to do the hearing but now can't so someone else has to be found to cover it. A common reason would be that the first barrister is on another hearing that's gone on longer than planned so the later hearing needs to get bumped for someone else to cover it.

Tbf, they do also have to be constantly vigilant, ensuring they're muted so as not to be caught in their derison of Allison for a third time

I'm quite happy to envisage a Mr Ben with a Support Twix etc.

And I and many others have acknowledged that there is a lot of professional respect between to protagonists - there may even be some sympathy - but a job is a job, and if he'd been briefed for the other side Ben would be fighting just as hard for them. Happily he was briefed by Allison.

And save your embarrassment for people who really seem to think that it's possible to actually change sex by "thinking" you have.

You have created a fantasy of this man, of who you think he is and what he thinks, which likely bears no resemblance to reality (see the speculation about a ‘wife’). It’s stuff like this which also then causes backlash against lawyers who represent unsavoury people.

Of course we have created a fantasy of this man! It's a bit of light-hearted banter - we don't now each other and can't get together with a glass of wine or a pint of Guinness so we banter and bond over what we are well aware is fantasy. We do it on lots of threads - there was an entire Tudor court (with an assassin) a few tears ago on a Professional Masterchef thread. It's FUN!

And to suggest it will actually cause a backlash against lawyers who represent "unsavoury people" is just stupid. The only people who think that a lawyer has to share their client's beliefs/ behaviour are the sort who will mix up a paediatrician and a paedophile (as has happened in the past). Ridiculous but it has an will happen regardless.

You just can't fix stupid.

Was that page E5624?

Do you know what Allison's comparative figures are?
I can see some stuff in the preceding pages but not sure if they are directly comparable figures.

I think CT is coming across very well indeed in a pretty stark contrast to all the GCC higher ups with their righteous bluster and indignation.

Sorry for typos. . . 😳

More the former. If I need a junior and X is plainly less annoying/more competent than Y, I may suggest X to the solicitors, who will then instruct X (probably).
It would be unusual for me to find myself landed with a junior who's just been assigned randomly by the clerks, because leader/junior relationships are quite important to the overall success of the case sometimes. At the very least the clerks would discuss the possibility of X versus Y with me first.