Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 15

[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 Hochhause

r QC, senior counsel - barrister for GC (teehee)
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

Thread 12 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4555687-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-12

Thread 13 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556235-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-13

Thread 14 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556407-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-14

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)
David Renton - barrister at GCC (20 May, 25 May)
Marc Willers - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Stephen Clark - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Liz Davies - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Cathryn McGahey - Bar Council Ethics Committee's VC (24 May)
Tom Wainwright - Barrister at GCC (24 May)
Colin Cook - Head clerk at GCC (24 May)
David de Menezes - GCC, Head of Marketing (25 May)
Kathryn Cronin - barrister at GCC (25 May)
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge (26 May)
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers (26 May)

To come:

I only hope GCC can take Stonewall down with them.

Yup, kudos to Ben!

Re the level of probity and intelligence shown by all these GCC QCs,
reckon many of us on this thread could do their job while looking after sick children/baking/sewing on badges at the same time

IANAL but I think SW may get away with it.

Weaselling attempt that it's not AB being investigated but the complaints.

Even if this just served as an Awful Warning to other Diversity Champions, that would be something.

Even if they do, what organisation in its right mind would want to associate with them now? GCC has been shown to be completely incompetent due to accepting Stonewall's version of the world and law.

Even so, they are already seriously damaged and none of this will help them restore their reputation

Barristers gossip As do clerks. Honestly, it's come up in numerous discussions in the last couple of weeks inside and outside chambers, with loads of people , clerks, juniors, silks, solicitors.

I agree Crazylazydayz but imagine this: AB wins some of her case and the legal world look on thinking "ahh, that's how it works, Stonewall lead you into a complete mess, and when you're stuck in the midst of it, Stonewall is off like a hare". The lesson to learn from this is pretty clear.

Completely agree SW have been damaged by this but may not have a judgement against them.

This 'repuational damage' justification GCC keeps trotting out is sounding a lot like shops who wouldn't hire Black people because some of their racist customers might not like it....
Discriminating against someone to please discriminatory people is not allowed. One might think that a barristers chambers specialising in human rights, equalities law, the rule of law, employment rights and anti-discrimination might have known this.

I think Stonewall could well get away with it. Hopefully a lot of corporates will look at this and realise what damage listening to Stonewall can do to your company. Your company is the one that ends up looking like amateur hour.

Did I hear that right, they're talking about a "Lucy Wibbly" now? Is she wobbly?

Yes,doesn't the (no longer) Independent have a dodgy offshoot in the Middle East.

No, no, no @BeBraveLittlePenguin, have you learned nothing from this hearing? Clerks don't gossip, they just talk football 🙄

she is actually coming across as much more a normal well thought of, deep thinking person this witness. which after all the blustering and whinging of the others makes her position to discriminate against Allison all the more mind blowing. until of course you look at her area of legal expertise.

In a mtg the board and management cttee agree AB should be offered and olive branch/ support but it should come from the Women's Officers rather than the board.

Timing = five days after the issue had arisen. But apparently JK had already offered support and AB didn't reply.

Like Essex University

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2bc11fae-b8d6-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=f538e0fb907473826403756a1cea459f

BC: you omit from your witness statement that the offer of an olive branch to AB came from the women's welfare officers,

SH: better to come from women's officers rather than HoC. It was impt to offer AB support and that was done.

BC: but recorded in minutes explicitly that that support was not coming from the board.

BC email from DMD saying word 'investigating' is causing problems, stirring up LGBA. Also said AB should have support re abuse she received.

SH There was consensus that AB should be offered support

BC Recorded in minutes and explicitly stated, support not to come from Board

SH Board expressed preference for support to come from womens officers

I don't think it's at that stage yet but we have to see what comes out in the judgement.

They had major IT problems and the Chief Exec fell on his sword over his responsibility for it.

Report it to the police?

Or, they're demonstrating that they're very knowledgeable about how difficult it is to prove some claims of detriment in Employment Tribunals if:
—you affect not to be able to understand questions and avoid answering a direct question;
—you have crystal clear recollection of a handful of personally favourable incidents;
—you have no memory at all of anything that might reflect badly on you;
—you manage to put up an explanation that is not wholly implausible as an argument against some otherwise unhelpful emails;
—you never, ever, research something to the extent that you'd expect a QC/barrister to do before considering something is confirmed.