Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 17

[ickky]

The Tribunal started on 25th April, witness testimony concluded on the 26th May. Closing arguments for council will be on the 20th June. I don't know if the existing links and pins will work. I will email nearer the time to check.

If you would like to view online you need to send a request for access.
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 – 20th June 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

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

Thread 15 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556803-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-15

Thread 16 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4557036-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-16

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

Closing arguments for AB, GCC, and SW (20 June)

Yes that's exactly what he's saying.

He's saying that that tweet was rightfully investigated because it was erroneously accusing MP and by association SW of encouraging others to commit criminal acts ie rape

My head objects to getting around this!!!!!

Echoes of 'why didn't she leave' here.

I think he's coming across OK today.
I don't think all his arguments hang together and that BC should be able to unpick/defend them bit I think he's just coming across as meticulous and clear - which for me is a relief after the earlier summation by IO.

"I'm going to put this slowly Madam as it's very important"

Bloody hell mate.

Not sure the sense of aggrieved moral outrage he employs throughout is all that helpful.

AH - '...take this slowly because it is very important'! Now talks to the EJ like she is a child.

She only can't hear you clearly, AH - she hasn't had a fucking lobotomy.

He does often treat her as if she is slow or stupid as opposed to having to multitask and hear his dodgy sound.

Mean, nasty Allison picking on clerks at the start of their career, barristers hoping to make it to QC and all the nice people at GCC who didn't deserve to be treated like this. AH working himself up into an indignant lather on their behalf and taking pops at BC.

AH now speaking to the judge as if she was a child. I admire her for not swiping back at him.

I would find it incredibly hard to be a judge. I would be announcing to AH that if he thinks he can possibly win whilst being so patronising in his tone then he has another think coming. GCC would lose and then have great grounds to appeal!

AH stating that the principal facts from the original bundle have all been demonstrably disproven by lack of evidence. Trying to find where the principal facts are as B numbers don't match E numbers.

Now that was condescending!

Well Hocky is pulling out all the emotive language isn't he. And each time he says he's adopting IO's arguments my first thought is 'are you sure about that?'. I don't know how EJ is managing his patronising approach so well, if I were at work and someone spoke to me in that manner I'd certainly be saying something. He's better than IO though...

If there's one thing this case has taught me it's that the bar to be a barrister is a whole lot lower than I had previously thought.

In fact, is that a legitimate argument at appeal.

AH "on behalf of GCC I demand to be granted an appeal on the basis that Judge Godman could not possibly have been unbiased having been patronised left right and centre by me throughout my closing submissions".

He keeps talking about the dropping of people at 5.30 one evening as "shocking". What's that about?

Imnotavetbut · Today 12:39

If there's one thing this case has taught me it's that the bar to be a barrister is a whole lot lower than I had previously thought.

In my relatively limited experience there are some barristers (25% to 30% of them) who are truly incredible. Of the rest I suspect around half are pretty good and half are better than they sound, which is not great!

I've missed RMW providing the E numbers

People are allowed to bring a claim if discriminated against without worrying about the hurty feels of the discriminators AH.

Yes, what is he referring to here?

EJ - a sigh for the ages! Perhaps two wet towels?

Ha Breaking BBC Boris news interrupting proceedings.

Hocky appears to have a support tech person living under his table. 😂

EJG manages to maintain a remarkable poker face but I don't think AH's 'outrage' is convincing her.

Someone has just moved AH's microphone to him.

No one in that room thought this was a good idea an hour ago?? 🙄

Someone took the genius measure of moving the microphone more closely to AH and suddenly he can be heard much more clearly.

Who would have guessed?