Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 18

[ickky]

The Tribunal started on 25th April, witness testimony concluded on the 26th May. Closing arguments for council was on the 20th June.

There was 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 )
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 = Judge Goodman, Mr M. Reuby and Ms Darmas

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

Thread 17 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4561850-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-17

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

Allison Bailey's

Witness Statement

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Witness-Statement-of-Allison-Bailey.pdf

Supplementary Statement

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/C-Supplementary-Witness-Statement.pdf

Closing Statement

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CLOSING-SUBMISSIONS-FINAL.pdf

Hip Hip! Brava Allison!! 🎉🎉

I don’t get that… they gave advice which the employer took and they aren’t to blame?

YESSSSSSSS

Presumably this means Stonewall can say what they want but if you're an employer who acts on their advice and it causes you to discriminate then you will be liable?

This amuses me as I have a mental image of Stonewall continuing to spout its nonsense to the air, as everyone is frightened of the consequences of listening to them.

It reminds me of when Polgara the Sorceress pronounces on somebody, what she says is one of the worst curses of all: that nobody will ever believe a word they say again. (Niche David Eddings reference).

I thought that 'claimant' was Allison Bailey?

Ah yes, my error.

Ignore.

Brilliant! Well done Allison and team I'm a feeling very emotional (where's my support dog 🐶)

Loving your username RandomlyThrownTogether !😂

But they have a page on the world wide interweb, with Chambers news and everything! I keep refreshing it, but nothing 🤷‍♀️

I am seriously tempted to send a big bunch of flowers round to GCC with a massive label saying “Congratulations on your ET victory Allison!!!”

Or maybe I should accidentally misaddress the envelope to the Head of Chambers, with the card for Allison inside…

Utterly fabulous result.
Stonewall have shown their true colours, even if they couldn't be pinned down in law - in fact that proves even more why organisations should not be associated with Stonewall: because if you do what Stonewall tell you, if you follow their illegal advice, you will get sued, and then Stonewall will protect itself and leave you to carry the can.
Thank you Allison (and team) for shining a light on the disgraceful misogynistic, homophobic, child abusing, fascistic organisation that Stonewall now is, and on the appalling behaviour of GCC which was shocking in so many ways (all bad). We are all so grateful for your courage and strength.

SK is a transman.

The claimant is AB.

I made the same mistake on the first read of that paragraph. It is tricky if you're not used to reading legalese.

They aren't legally on the hook for Alison as the client has been given the blame for acting on their illegal advice. However, the client has a case against Stonewall but the fact they are a barristers chamber and should have known better will probably count against them. Not a great advert for Stonewall though.

I am seriously tempted to send a big bunch of flowers round to GCC with a massive label saying “Congratulations on your ET victory Allison!!!”

Genius idea!

@GrabbyGabby A large public US company. They really don't see it the same way. All these initiatives are driven from the US. Intranet is full of commentary on every leftwing issue, with the rather glaring immission of Roe v. Wade, which is apparently too divisive and they will be making no comment. If I say anything I'll just lose my bonus, it won't change anything.

Loving Allison's press release.

JK Rowling's friend Allison Bailey wins...!

https://allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-07-22-Press-Release-Publication-copy.docx.pdf

You don't need a legal win to win. This is really excellent, even if some claims fell by the wayside. I am waiting to hear what Allison Bailey has to say and in the meantime, congratulations Allison

Must plough through the judgement and see if The Bundle was mentioned ...

That evidence should be free of the phrases, Christmas shopping, Friday afternoon, 1 a.m., driving, children etc.

You missed my favourite which was “reversing into a bin”.

And that Stonewall statement, to me, seems to translate as “Someone in SW went rogue but anyway, if you listen to our advice on your own head be it.”

Aside from any of that, bloody well done Allison!

I think is meant to be a disco glitter ball though for a long time I thought it was a grenade.

Works either way.

Yes and we not only lost in Court but we have to pay aggravated damages, this is how good we are at being Stonewall champions, the legal bit well that leaves a bit to be desired, truly a unique selling point I'd say!

Any other Stonewall Champions better wake up quick smart to just how expensive and damaging doing Stonewall's bidding is, especially their urging to get ahead of the Law. Follow the actual Law not Stonewall's version of it.

So, in my basic understanding, Alison Bailey was discriminated against by Garden court Chambers because they mistook stonewall law for actual law.
And this means that officially the "rules" stonewall push don't have any teeth. Is that right?

Congratulations! Very well deserved.

Oops, in para 16 of the decision the emotional support dog, mother, and entourage are mistakenly attributed to Shaan Knan!

.enjoyed this paragraph about the bundle 😂The main hearing bundle was exceptionally difficult to work with. Despite the guidance on preparation of electronic bundles in CPR, the Employment Tribunals Presidential Direction, Employment Judge Stout’s explicit directions in earlier case management hearings, and the time the case had taken to come to hearing, it seemed to have been randomly thrown together. Sections were not OCR readable. Over 600 pages of Garden Court disclosure were not in the main index but in a 13 page sub-index inserted between pages 374 and 375. Five other sub-indexes had been grafted in, but did not reach the tribunal until 18 May. Pagination from earlier bundles had not been removed, complicating the search function. Pages had been inserted sideways. Email exchanges could be 2,000 or 4,000 pages apart. There was frequent duplication of the same emails or tweets. An additional 116 pages (“section L”) did not reach the tribunal until 20 May. The supplementary bundle was added to more than once, and additions not always notified to the tribunal.