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)

That's a good summary @CriticalCondition - thanks for the heads up

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/stonewall-sought-barristers-removal-tribunal-hears/5112844.article

On an unrelated note, I found I had the note EJG wrote about giving access to the public to court documents open on my computer still. Her scathing comments on the appallingly put together bundle are a joy to read.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned

Thanks for the link, Clymene. Even better in the flesh!

@Clymene do you have a link to EJG's comments?

Cooper cited an email sent on 31 October 2019, by Kirrin Medcalf, head of trans inclusion at Stonewall, to the GCC heads of chambers. In the email Medcalf expressed concern about Bailey’s 'multiple transphobic statements' on Twitter, saying that GCC’s 'continued association' with Bailey 'puts us in a difficult position with yourselves' and trusting that GCC 'will do what is right'.

Cooper said it was 'explicit that he is seeking to have the claimant expelled from chambers'. Medcalf had 'agreed in his evidence that that was certainly an outcome he was intending to suggest,' he added.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/stonewall-sought-barristers-removal-tribunal-hears/5112844.article

In that Gazette piece AH is quoted (for GCC): Defending themselves is not the same as attacking her.

Do you think he could get that through to Stonewall et al, as they don't seem to hear women.

Do you think he could get that through to Stonewall et al, as they don't seem to hear women.

Oh, SW hear women all right - just not the ones that we would recognise as such.

No because they were part of the tribunal and I am not permitted to share as part of the order.

That said, I can tell you that EJG says that it is regrettable that despite specific instructions about how the bundle should have been put together, there is duplication, things aren't in chronological order, there are no bookmarks from the index, and there is enormous discrepancy between the page numbers in the electronic bundle and hard copy. All this meant that the public would find it very difficult to find the correct part of the bundle. It also seems that parties redacted part of the public bundle without direction from the tribunal.

Her impatience is very clear.

Ah I wasn't sure if it would be against the order - thanks for the summary

Well I'm not 100% as IANAL but better to err on the side of caution I feel!

AH should definitely play himself.

He has the presence of an annoying older relative who you want to strangle during Christmas Lunch, but are secretly very fond of.

I read that really wrong, Mediocre.

Aghhh...Should have clarified in the upcoming film

I noticed that in the closing submissions that we had access to whilst observing, AB's and GCC's were nicely bookmarked and SW's was not.

Thank you all for your great comments. I haven't been able to get back to this so I do appreciate those who have, posting here.

however - I would just like to say (again) - I do wish we could consider a lovely long running chunky box set TV drama instead of a film. Give the audience time to get to know and love / hate our dramatis personae. Allow time for the complex issues to breathe. Mirror the weeks / months that are the real time units of time in this case.
More importantly: the repeated TITLE SEQUENCE. Each character on camera doing his / her thing over the (cheesy, yes please allow me cheesy) theme music.
"STARRING ....
ANDREW HOCHHAUSER... as himself"
(He does his lovely finishing smile and a bit of a boxy-papers flourish)
"SOMEONE OR OTHER as Kirren Medcalf"
(looks up from scrabbling at the table covered in papers and giggles whimsically as a mum and a support dog emerge from under the table on either side)
"KRISTEN SCOTT THOMAS as Employment Judge Goodman" (snaps head sideways to camera and raises an eyebrow)

And so on

I think so far we have plans for a movie, a musical, and a ten part Netflix drama.

I quite fancy a touring stage play.

I wonder whether Andrew Hochhauser ever googles himself... I suspect he might be quite amused.

...then the solicitor, then the support person and more and more people from under the table, like a clown car.

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.

Me an' all, @Pluvia

And I would have taken an unholy delight in being able to repeatedly say "F*ck" in a courtroom.

The Law lost a great advocate when I decided to go into specs and language therapy.

*speech and language - not specs

(See - I could even cock-up a bundle) 😂

I wonder if that's because they spend every waking moment trying to persuade everyone that they're always right.

Having your very livelihood totally dependent on making sure no-one can successfully challenge a single thing you say must have an effect on your psyche.

I found that very endearing

I reckon Alex Macqueen could play Hochhauser, the actor who was Julius Nicholson in The Thick Of It.

That's a good call. Lots of The Thick of It actors could have a part.

I see parallels between Mr H and Stuart Pearson.

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.

I’d say you risk being overqualified. If I had IO as my QC, it would be quicker to plead guilty, serve a sentence and have it become spent than wait for her to um and ah and “I don’t have that to hand” her way through a shambolic defence.

I’d say you risk being overqualified. If I had IO as my QC, it would be quicker to plead guilty, serve a sentence and have it become spent than wait for her to um and ah and “I don’t have that to hand” her way through a shambolic defence.

😂