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)

Trans dispute led Stonewall to ‘insult lesbian barrister’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f51dca26-f0b3-11ec-9bea-abc2bc5953e5?shareToken=c386397842b3dcd50f5e943ebb379c2b

Jeez. Trying to intimidate the very judge presiding over an intimidation case? Have I got that right?

That was my understanding too. Just staggering.

Wow! GCC really seem to think they are above and beyond the law/everyone else, don't they?

Yep, place your bets.
Just caught up. Am in thrall to you all. Some brilliant comments and I'm so sorry I never got to see sooper cooper and his magnificent support beardwren

Someone asked about Allison dropping 13 people from the claim. I think BC explained that in order to obtain all the material they needed, and with GCC not disclosing information readily, he and AB had been obliged to include everyone who might turn out to be involved/ useful as a way of obtaining as much information as possible regarding the detriments Allison had suffered. Following disclosure and cross examination it had become clear that some of those included had not played a significant part in the case and so they had been dropped in order to make the tribunal's life easier (fewer people to take into account) as well as sending those dropped an all-clear message. BC indicated that this was a courteous professional decision taken by Allison. I think it probably saves the tribunal from having to consider those 13 lots of evidence. But IANAL and I may have got it completely wrong.

Re not being a lawyer, I too am realising far too late in life that I could have been all sorts of impressive things, like a lawyer and a clinical psychologist and an MP. Even though I had a rather fabulous education (pure fluke, not background or money) I did an arts degree that didn't appear to qualify me for a 'proper' career. But back in the day I had a fabulous memory for detail, I can write well and pin together an argument and my analytical skills are good. I can also, when on a roll, even be eloquent. I'm gutted to realise far, far too late in life that I could have been a QC.

Oh, and I'd like to say how inspiring it's been to see a grey-haired, apparently unassuming woman in her 70s (I think I have that right) presiding so beadily over proceedings. Her interventions have been telling. Let's hear it for EJ Goodman!

‘Beadily’ - EJG is a gem.

WOuldn't that be an ethical dilemma as FK would seem to be doubting the powers of RMW and IO?

I'd like to say how inspiring it's been to see a grey-haired, apparently unassuming woman in her 70s (I think I have that right) presiding so beadily over proceedings. Her interventions have been telling. Let's hear it for EJ Goodman!

I do get this. And I recognise that I'm sad that the general expectation is otherwise given the seemingly default view on MN (in some contexts) that anyone in their 50s is plausibly showing signs of early dementia.

I'd like to see much more acknowledgement of the outstanding work done by women of a certain age (the men of the same age group seem to receive plenty accolades). Goodman, Nicholson, Hale, Dobbs.

Was following Tribunal Tweets a bit yesterday (name change - have been following the case). Is it right that AB dropped the claim on the first detriment? Was that the clerking/GCC conspiracy element?

I don't know but yesterday it occurred to me that BC didn't advance any arguments in support of "the clerking/GCC conspiracy element".

As I remember although there probably was a clerking problem it would be difficult to prove, of all the lawyers at GCC the clerks seemed to give the clearest reasoned evidence. And they pushed the view that they had no skin in the game.

Although to me it seemed BC found enough circumstantial evidence that the clerks were neglecting Allison .
Also there was a lot of ‘it was Christmas’ I was on the beach’ ‘ I had an important case’ ‘I can’t remember’ going on
And like others I’m too thinking I could also have been a lawyer with enough independent thought to not follow naive and stupid ideologies.

It is covered quite fully in the submission though.

Were you struck (I was) by the way the different generations spoke to her? AH in a combination of condescending and hectoring, speaking up as if EJG was badly hearing-impaired when actually it was his microphone that was too far away from him? I did appreciate BC's tone: talking to her as he would a competent fellow-professional, not hamming it up for the audience, acknowledging the complexity of the task ahead of her and her team members.

Also there was a lot of ‘it was Christmas’ I was on the beach’ ‘ I had an important case’ ‘I can’t remember’ going on

Not to mention “I was reversing into a bin”

Following disclosure and cross examination it had become clear that some of those included had not played a significant part in the case and so they had been dropped in order to make the tribunal's life easier (fewer people to take into account) as well as sending those dropped an all-clear message. BC indicated that this was a courteous professional decision taken by Allison.

So not quite the shocking drama suggested by Mr H? Honestly, that man is a loss to amateur dramatics.

Mr Hochhauser can play himself in the film. It'll be like 'Being John Malkovich'.

I bet he'd enjoy it and he can use his super petulant comment of 'And always have!'

So not quite the shocking drama suggested by Mr H? Honestly, that man is a loss to amateur dramatics. 😁

I’m a little confused about why I liked Hochauser. Normally condescending men make my teeth itch. I think it’s because he seemed to really enjoy his job, and he was clearly good at it. And I liked how he would drop the dickhead persona and smile at the end of his bits.

The SW people by contrast seemed to be method actors, if they were acting. And they most definitely didn’t radiate the same kind of competence.

I liked him as well, Tasteful - despite myself (as you say).

I bet he's Mr Charisma if you work with him every day, and i did enjoy the smile he gave Allison at the end of her evidence.

As long as he agrees to tone down the Alexander Pope ad libs then I can get on board with that.

He's gay. I think that helps with his likeability. He's not just steeped in stereotypical toxic masculinity like some other men.

I think his AP quotes could be performed like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet, and delivered in whispered asides to the audience.
Or Ferris Bueller - but either way!

I think AH would get a kick out of breaking down the 4th wall. He has great facial expressions.

I may have thought about this way, way too much!

So not quite the shocking drama suggested by Mr H? Honestly, that man is a loss to amateur dramatics.

That made me laugh. Yesterday I thought the whole scenario he conjured up of Allison dropping all those people from the claim sounded quite convincing. Obviously the truth is a bit more mundane. I did think the whole histrionics about Allison hounding people with her claim when they were in the process of (gasp!) going for silk were a bit over the top.

That is very telling about the culture of self righteous SJWs which was very clearly evident when they were giving evidence.

I mean at GCC. They are all so wedded to their view of themselves as always on the side of the angels that they seem to find it absolutely absurd to even consider that they could ever get it wrong.

May I just say how thrilled I am to be on a message board with people who know Alexander Pope when they hear him. I'm having a 'found my tribe' moment.

Have just caught up. Thank you to all the pp with chat, explanations and humour over the last 17 threads. I do think these threads should be put in FWR Classics (if there is such a thing).

I was waiting for EJG to get stuck into a bit of Andrew Marvell and 'time's winged chariot' at the end, Pluvia.

Ah, had we but world enough and time... Well, IO certainly took her time, didn't she!

Yesterday's hearing had been reported fairly and accurately in the Law Society Gazette today. Sorry I can't link but it's a cracker. It describes SW as a 'campaign group', quotes KM's email to GCC including the final 'trust you'll do what is right' and refers to the barrage of abuse, death threats and gun memes that AB received. IO's submission that AB was motivated by visceral hostility based on her own prejudice to bring a case bereft of legal merit is quoted which comes across very poorly.

Sunlight, sunlight.