Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 12

[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

Thread 9 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553181-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-9

Thread 10 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553754-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-10

Thread 11 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4555145-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-11

Allison Bailey - claimant (4-9, 11-13 May)

Witnesses for the claimant:

Dr Nicola Williams - Fair Play for Women (29 April)
Dr Judith Green - A Woman's Place (29 April)
Kate Barker - LGB Alliance (3 May)
Lisa-Marie Taylor - FiLiA (4 May)

Witnesses for the respondents:

Stephen Lue - barrister for GCC (3-4 May)
Zainab Al-Farabi - ex Stonewall (10 May)
Kirrin Medcalf - head of trans inclusion Stonewall (10 May)
Leslie Thomas - barrister at GCC (13 May)
Sanjay Sood Smith - Stonewall (16 May)
Shaan Knan - LGBT consortium - on STAG (16 May)
Rajiv Menon - joint head of chambers (16-17 May)
Maya Sikand - barrister at GCC (17-18 May)
Mia Hakl-Law - HR senior for GCC (18 May)
Judy Khan - barrister at GCC (19-20 May)
Charlie Tennent - clerk at GCC (20 May)
Luke Harvey - clerk at GCC (20 May)
Louise Hooper - Barrister at GCC (20 May)
Marc Willers - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Stephen Clark - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Liz Davies - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Katherine McGahy (24 May)
Tom Wainwright - Barrister at GCC (24 May)

To come:

Colin Cook - clerk at GCC (24 May)
David de Menezes - GCC, Head of Marketing
David Renton - barrister at GCC (20 May, to continue on 25th May)
Kathryn Cronin - barrister at GCC
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge.

Hot off the press, new running order for tomorrow:

Renton
Michelle Brewer
David de Menezes

Renton, Brewer then Dr Menezes tomorrow. Wow, tomorrow will be unmissable!!

9.30 start tomorrow.

Another 9:30 start tomoz.

Tomorrow's estimates:
David Renton - half an hour
Michelle Brewer - 3 hours
David de Menezes - 2 hours down from 3

Starting at 9.30am tomorrow with David Renton, then Michelle Brewer and then David de Menezes.

I think something was said about it being harder to get legal aid from 2019 which might then impact cases?

chilling19 · Today 15:20

A friend who puts together bundles (and not watching this) was horrified when I shared the problems in this tribunal. Her sharp intake of breath was legendary. Judges really really get annoyed about it.

IANAL. I might have said this before... I have appeared at Tribunal (not employment) and had my client get a costs award against the other side. Proper "you will pay the other side's full costs of the hearing". The costs award was down to the losing side preparing an appalling bundle that completely wound the Tribunal up having to deal with, plus having an appalling case. The losing case was not simply "unconvincing", it was so unconvincing that it was hard to believe that it was not deliberately dishonest. I know Tribunals do not like making cost awards, and would not predict that one will be made this time.

Saying that a cost award that says "pay 10% of ABs costs because 10% of her costs were incurred as a direct result of the hearing taking 10% longer due to bundle incompetence" is not impossible. I'd like to think that it's not impossible the EJ will say "full costs - GC and Stonewall, you have literally been denying that sexual orientation exists and is a protected characteristic. You are completely unreasonable in not settling this case given your case is based on a total misunderstanding of the law which you - barristers and "diversity experts" - really should know inside out." But I'd be astonished if a costs award went anywhere near that far!

~30 mins of Renton and then three hours of Brewer. Just rearranging my diary for the morning.

I'd like to think that it's not impossible the EJ will say "full costs - GC and Stonewall, you have literally been denying that sexual orientation exists and is a protected characteristic. You are completely unreasonable in not settling this case given your case is based on a total misunderstanding of the law which you - barristers and "diversity experts" - really should know inside out."

Oh that would be fab.

I've been wondering, as AB is a member of GCC, does that mean she has to pay part of GCC's costs in this case??

Grrr, I'm busy tomorrow morning and so will miss most of Brewer's testimony!

Whew. Another wild day at the Employment Tribunal.

TeenPlusCat · Today 15:53

There is a problem isn't there that if you bring in a system to evidence you aren't discriminating, and then don't use it, that you then don't have evidence to show you aren't discriminating.

And you have evidence that they were aware of a problem but not concerned enough about it to use the system brought in to address it.

Well that's worked out in my favour.
What will happen on Thursday if the bulk of the remaining witnesses are examined tomorrow?

So realistically, where does this leave us? At this stage, I feel like it's quite strongly in favour AB in terms of terrible treatment but less sure that they have made the case that there was deliberate planned and overt reductions in case allocations as a result. If her case was that they allowed their prejudices to influence the allocations I think she might have that, but there doesn't seem to be a clear chain of discussion/action to directly change the work allocations. However, as PP have said, if they'd used the software given to them, it might have been clearer, so that has to be taken into account.

That's me resolved to actually try and watch this in person tomorrow. Damn this work deadline.

I've been wondering, as AB is a member of GCC, does that mean she has to pay part of GCC's costs in this case??

I think the GCC respondents were 'all of them except AB.'

It does strike me that testimony has been along the lines of 'I'm not racist, my best friend is Black.....'

Yes @Lougle and in this case I'm not a misogynist I like Allison and she's a lesbian

The judge just needs to conclude that Allison's account is more likely than the defendants'.

See, I don't see how "Allison's allocated work dropped more than any other barrister's, and that's got absolutely nothing to do with the way half of Chambers were seething with rage at her" is more likely than "Actually, there is a connection between the extreme animosity against Allison and the drop off in work she received."

But I do appreciate it's hard to see the exact mechanism.

the incompetence of such high flying lawyers is eye opening

Isn't it just!

So in Allison's favour for detriment 1 we have (IIRC):
Stats showing her income lowered by a huge amount, much more than anyone else. No evidence led distinguishing why.
It appears there was no disclosure of the computer system print outs that may have enabled GCC to distinguish good reasons why other barristers income did not drop the same way.
Evidence led about Allison having comparable days off/ keep free days in another year when her income was good.
Evidence led that a computer system was brought in to mitigate discrimination against female barristers, and that was not used by the clerks.
Contradictions in evidence about who was responsible for clerking Allison.
Evidence that CC was not paying much attention to spread of cases, despite him stating that part of his job was to keep their diaries full as possible.

Maybe not a smoking gun, maybe not enough to prove, but it could be?

Stephanie Harrison still to come and she'll be a longish one on Thursday.

Will need my fan on to keep my temperature down

Who is Stephanie Harrison?