Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 9

[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

Thread 8 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4552521-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-8

Allison Bailey - claimant

Witnesses for the claimant:

Nic Williams - Fair Play for Women
A Woman's Place
FiLiA
Kate Harris - LGB Alliance

Witnesses for the respondents:

Stephen Lue - barrister for GCC
Kirrin Medcalfe - head of trans inclusion Stonewall
Sanjay Sood Smith - Stonewall
Shaan Knan - LGBT consortium - on STAG
Leslie Thomas - barrister at GCC
Rajiv Menon - joint head of chambers
Maya Sikand - barrister at GCC and in charge of writing report on AB/complaints
Mia Hakl-Law - HR senior for GCC
Judy Khan - barrister at GCC

Current Witness - Charlie Tennant - Clerk at GCC

To come

Luke Harvey - Clerk at GCC
Louise Hooper - Clerk at GCC
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge

Well that was all a bit much from JR at the end there.

some high drama that I didn't quite follow - much objecting to everything and JR insisting she's OK to do this, BC objecting strongly, EJ sighing. I'm not even sure how it ended.

lunch!

Great and thank you for putting it together.

I think AH would have had a quiet word if he'd witnessed that. JR relieved he's in Mortlake.

She didn't get to ask her dramatic question and she ended with a meek thank you to EJG

@CriticalCondition I think it was an answer he'd been coached to give. Possibly is as not to give something else away rather than because he was actively involved.

They didn't dismiss the witness did they? I think he was finished. It was all a bit fraught at the end.

I nearly typed that in the chat box to remind the judge then worried I'd be in contempt for telling her her job. Was just about to do it anyway as we stayed online for ages and then CT disconnected himself anyway.

Especially as I'm just some rando observer and knew nothing about tribunal proceedings until this all started 😆

(Ack was stuck on the last thread! Thanks for new thread Ickky!)

JR thinks this is LA Law! high drama!

I had to ask for the bundle to be reposted the other day and was still bricking it in case it was somehow misconstrued. 😳

Thank you @ickky for yet another thread! EJ sounded a bit resigned when she said back after break. It must be grueling to have to stay on top of every second of this and be the referee and timekeeper as well as the judge and then dealing with the tech BS on top. I hope the courts sort out some better setups, so much of the annoying noise stuff seems like it could be avoidable.

I'm still chuffed EJG read out my message this morning about finding a headset for Miss Khan.

I'd like to buy that woman a drink. 🍸

Well it's post noon on a Friday - I might just begin the bingo card drinking game 😂

Does anyone have access to the pleaded detriments (5?) I assume it’s ok to post these - would someone be able to do that? Her reputation must have taken a battering from the announced investigation and distancing and that would affect earnings going forward. I can see however that the clerking conspiracy might be difficult to make out (although the drop in earnings compared to others who took off similar time is suspicious).

JR must be relatively junior to get that dramatic and not be able to reign it in for the judge.

From reading TT sounds like the EJ was very dismissive of JR at the end there.

If not a drop in work due to the clerks' active decisions/allocations, it could be a drop in work due to some other cause at GCC that didn't overtly involve the clerks

Sorry, repeating form the last thread...did anyone else see that MF said in the chat that Sex Matters had sent a letter to the judge?

If you get hold of the downloadable core bundle when the link is posted in the chat, maltravers, the detriments are in the document Claimant's ET1 and Revised Particulars of Claim, section 24, CLAIMS.

You're on TV JR, you need to dial it down, it's not the RSC. Less is more.

Placemarking. Very much enjoying both the serious discussion and the frivolities. Thanks all. AND THANKS ALLISON!

I've been listening whilst working doing some very boring admin - it's made the time pass nicely!

Am I right in thinking JR used the term 'conspiracy' and the EJ picked her up on it as something that was not actually used by AB?

I've got to say the defense are coming across as very defensive (maybe that's normal in trials?) compared to BC's very quiet, reasonable and polite demeanour. The two don't compare favourably. Whilst I can understand the witnesses being like this - after all they are being challenged - I don't think it comes across well when their barristers are the same, or worse.

My impression (please correct if wrong) was that JR wanted to ask a question of the clerk CT that BC had intentionally NOT asked ('was there a conspiracy?' or something like that), and BC was objeciting by saying that re-examination is for re-examining what's been covered, not for introducing new lines of enquiry. Then there was chaos.

.