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)

OK. Does seem to be matching up with Stonewall's closing submission now.

Skeleton argument = closing submission ??

I'm losing the will to live. Is this another prong of Stonewall's cunning plan aimed at getting observers to go and do something less boring instead?

This feels to me like when I'd written a cracking essay at university and then when it came to supervision and presenting my arguments in front of the tutor and a few other students, all my fluency and momentum had disappeared and I couldn't even remember what I'd written, let alone why.

This would have benefitted from an opening paragraph to explain what she's doing and why.

Thanks nauticant
I'm working in the background and it's pretty dull so far!

Stonewall has a 'Mr Twocock' - you can't make this stuff up!

Chronology also being the early part of the same document

I don't care for her delivery, but the information she's imparting is important.

Morning, late to the party, can some one dm me the log in info pretty please?

If I was paying the fees of the person currently talking I would be very unimpressed

I'm losing the will to live. Is this another prong of Stonewall's cunning plan aimed at getting observers to go and do something less boring instead?
and
If I was paying the fees of the person currently talking I would be very unimpressed

Indeed to both comments. I am wondering if the plan is to seek leniency/symphathy due to total incompetence.

In short IO says there's no evidence.

I don't expect a decision to be coming out quickly. There's a vast amount of evidence with many days of witness in person evidence, the tribunal panel will be aware that all sides will be looking very carefully for grounds of appeal, and then there's the Summer holidays.

Is that his name or his gender identity?

My counter argument to this is due to lack of disclosure, AB's claim developed as more information came to light.

EJG looks pained. I mean, she always does, but especially so listening to Ms O's delivery.

Just heard Support Cat Goodman!

I do think the content that IO is imparting is sound. Delivery may not be spellbinding but she seems to be trying to show that Stonewall had little contact with and no influence over GCC.

Now even the judge's cat is protesting that this is too boring…

Agree. IO's delivery was so halting at the beginning that I was genuinely having difficulty following what was said, let alone picking out what she was driving at.

Misgendered Mr Lue

So Stonewall's official argument is that the Diversity Champions scheme doesn't do much and isn't particularly influential.

Doesn't seem worth the fee really.

I have been following Tribunal Tweets as well as I just can't make sense of the words as spoken.

This seems key: "GCC had incorrect expectations of Diversity Champs programme, they expected referrals and paid work, they expected referrals and paid work, ZA realised and spelt out that no, and thereafter there was even less interest and in the November 2020 GCC decided not to renew, not value for money.

But it is this relationship, this programme, that claimant is trying to hang all claim of conspiracy on. She says it has the material to do so. Invite tribunal to reflect on the actual engagement, as evidence. Not as supposistions by claimant."

So GCC weren't biased towards Stonewall, because we realised we weren't going to get cash and jobs for them, so GCC couldn't possibly have been detrimental to AB

Michelle Brewer attended 'that' meeting a personal capacity.

Sure, Jan. 🤨

Just came on to say that - it seems to be that no one was aware of the diversity champions programme so look lots of evidence that we had no influence