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

@CatherinaJTV

I think they had everything to do with it. Stonewall’s reputation has carried it a long way. Now employers can see they are obligated to ignore what Stonewall might think, say or claim, and consider the law. Where does that leave the Diversity Champions scheme?

Brilliant Allison, well done.

Stonewall won - what are you on about?

This is similar to the Keira bell case? Ie, Keira may have ultimately lost, but puberty blockers aren't being given out so freely anymore and out of it came the Cass Review?

So Allison may not have necessarily 'won' against Stonewall, but they aren't going yo be able to pedal their services so freely now and the messages they are trying to embed in policy and law are not going to fly?

And these cases, that have cost so much, have featured tonnes of preparation and litigation to set precidents, so the groundwork for future cases has been done. It won't cost me £500k if I were to lose my job, for instance, because of my GC views - to actually bring a case to tribunal is free, its just the legal representation that costs money.

No it isn't. Nothing in the judgement (as far as I have seen, correct me if I am wrong with the pertinent section from the judgement) blames Stonewall for the actions of the Chambers.

Alex Drummond misgendered several times in para 139.

And a shout out to MN in para 157.

"it was Stonewall or Stonewall policy or Stonewall training that made the Chambers send those three tweets"

Has someone in this thread used these words? It's fast moving so I may have missed it.

I am a woman.

Most women I know have other problems that this whole hearing does not even begin to address.

Fine.

Anyone reading the judgement or following the case can make up their own mind, though?

I reckon the reputational damage to Stonewall will be significant.

Two posts above yours? It's implicit in several in this thread who still want to blame the Chamber's action on Stonewall advice.

They won.

If there's "reputational damage" that would be on the grossly misleading headlines in the press (I take it The Telegraph has altered theirs 4 times so far).

‘Most women I know have other problems that this whole hearing does not even begin to address.’

Ah, the ‘more important things’ fallacy. Women will be treated as equals when their rights aren’t treated as nice-to-haves once they have successfully addressed everyone else’s problems.

Newsflash, Catharina - many people have multiple things they are concerned about. It's possible to be worried about the environment, the current dire political situation in the UK, the cost of living crisis, the war in Ukraine, all sorts of personal issues and the threat to women's rights and safeguarding of children and other vulnerable people - all at the same time!

Seriously, if you're just going to be dishonest we can all see it. What's the point?

The post you reference is talking about the Kiera Bell case and doesn't include the words you are claiming that people are saying.

Can we at least have the bar in this thread set at 'not lying'? It's not really civil discussion and will probably just be ignored tbh.

It's a point of semantics, I know, but Stonewall can't have 'won' anything given that they didn't bring the case in order to win or lose anything.

They were accused of something. There was no compelling evidence to find that was true. So what did they 'win'? Damages like Allison? Nope. They 'won' not being found responsible. That isn't really winning anything, is it?

The parallel to the Keira Bell case seems a good one to me. Lots of publicity, lots of horrified incredulity from people who hadn't previously known what was going on, a perceptible change in public and political attitudes as a result.

Any employer which has been advised by Stonewall and similar bodies and has altered employment and other policies as a result would be foolish not to go back and check that they are complying with the law of the land, and not the gender-trumps-sex version gender activists confidently told them was about to come into force, and hasn't.

I've read the judgment and as far as I can make all Allison won was £22k for some tweets that caused "injury to feelings".

Is this correct?

‘Most women I know have other problems that this whole hearing does not even begin to address.’

Tbf this hearing was unique in being the only legal hearing in the history of the law that did not address 'most other problems'. Quite a maverick approach to use the hearing to address a single issue, and the related evidence, but it could catch on....

In The Spectator:

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-bravery-of-allison-bailey

But you're clearly not one of them because you're here too.

So why are we frivolous and vapid for being concerned about this, but you're worthy and noble for being concerned about our concern? Why are our concerns unimportant if yours aren't?

Try reading this very carefully (my bold)

"So Allison may not have necessarily 'won' against Stonewall, but they aren't going yo be able to pedal their services so freely now and the messages they are trying to embed in policy and law are not going to fly?"

This speaks about AB, and alleges that it was Stonewall's "policies" that were struck down in court. That is not the case. Your sloppy reading ≠ my lie

It's a point of semantics, I know, but Stonewall can't have 'won' anything given that they didn't bring the case in order to win or lose anything.

But in her own words, AB did lose her case to Stonewall.

I was just answering the question put to me. But of course you are all absolutely free to give your money to any cause you want.

Yes. Because it was Allison's case to win or lose.

Para 282 is interesting if you like little legal details.