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

Yes that's strange - it was 'Trending' all morning when there was far less traffic on it.

That’s so funny. I had a hunch so I looked it up and sure enough, guess how PN reported the case of the absolutely-fabulist transwoman who lost on 60 out of 61 allegations of discrimination in their NHS employment tribunal:

www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/07/21/trans-nhs-worker-discrimination-case-sheffield-teaching-hospitals/

To avoid anyone having to click the PN link, a spoiler: yes, that TW who lost on 60 counts was reported as having won the employment tribunal. To be fair I think that’s how it goes when reporting on tribunals. The inconsistency from Cohen is funny though.

I think Stonewall's accounts for this period are going to make very interesting reading. Legal expenses over the last 3 years together with the costs of a QC and a junior in court for a 6 week hearing. Falling income from all those departments, organisations and companies who are not renewing their membership.

No doubt there are legal ways to fudge the figures so these specific costs and drops in income are difficult to pick out in amongst other stuff. But I bet there are shit hot accountant types on here who'll be able to spot that kind of shenanigans a mile off.

I once worked for a huge organisation with deep pockets. It absolutely hated employment tribunals because of the staff time and costs involved. They were an absolute nightmare in terms of tying up HR personnel and managers, witnesses, legals costs, reputational damage (win or lose), and hammering morale. It was not unknown for board members to be lobbied.

The cost to Garden Court Chambers is not easy to quantify to the pound and penny but it's going to be on the significant side of 'fecking enormous'.

“strategic litigation”.

It’s a thing

There are always two prongs to the cases women here support. Firstly, we support individual women in defending themselves, their reputation, their livelihoods. Secondly, in doing that, we aim to effect larger societal change, such that any one of us, in similar circumstances don’t need to resort to expensive, stressful litigation, because all of our rights are already protected in law.

this case scores on both counts. Allison received support, and is vindicated in her claims against her chambers. The second is also a success because the dial has perceptibly shifted on the public perception of the dire limitations and deficiencies of Stonewalls advice, which they have themselves had to admit! This is good news for women because policies and practices that are detrimental to our sex based rights are now going to be eyed a lot more critically.

You do understand that this is literally all we want, yes, transallies? A plurality of views that protects everyone?

<optimist>

The cost to Garden Court Chambers is not easy to quantify to the pound and penny but it's going to be on the significant side of 'fecking enormous'.

Exactly this.

One of the biggest issues for them is the sunlight on how they (as a Chambers) "managed" their defence and the testimony of some very senior barristers whose personal reputation was damaged when they were cross examined. They did not perform well.

That's a big deal in legal circles - being made to look bad in front of your peers and it's why they shouldn't appeal. I can't imagine any of the main GCC protagonists want to go for round two....but who knows.

Sophoclesthefox

Like button needed!

The cost to Garden Court Chambers is not easy to quantify to the pound and penny but it's going to be on the significant side of 'fecking enormous'.

Against that, they've shown they're willing to go the extra mile. They ought to be rocketed to no1 SW Champion Employer, such is their dedication to the cause. If there's any justice.

I worry they'll get passed over though.

<sigh>

So pleased to read this!
Knew the EJ was on the ball. Special shout out to Martin Reuby too!

As an aside, Bet that was the easiest money IOW has ever earned.

Just brilliant news and I liked the summary of the case that was written

Thanks for the link: it’s really interesting to put the £22k aggravated damages in context and learn that £5k damages is the typical amount. Also thanks to the pp who posted the Spectator link highlighting how scared even cabinet ministers and shadow cabinet ministers have been to speak out on this and how important this case, and Maya’s case, are in lessening the fear.

Who was it on here who said this case was A Very Big Deal for the whole legal profession - as in, everyone was keeping track of it? Or was it on RoF?

This.

What some people can't get their head around is that these women, Allison, Maya, Joanne, Keira - they aren't just doing all this for themselves, they are doing it to help others as well. Which is why a full 'win' doesn't matter. It is about, as Sophocles said, bringing sunlight and effecting societal change. Each case shifts things a little further.

I guess the idea of not only acting solely in your own interests is lost on certain people...

Do you think Garden Court Chambers will sign up to Stonewall schemes next year?

I guess the idea of not only acting solely in your own interests is lost on certain people..

Isnt it?!

And anyone who thinks that this was anything but an embarrassing L for Stonewall really wasn’t paying attention. Like strategic litigation, reputational damage is also A Thing What is the lasting image that Joe Public has of this trial? Senior staff at a formerly respected charity need to bring their mum and their dog to a professional obligation for moral support, while stating that there’s no such thing as male and female bodies.

Will Garden Court Chambers even be around next year? They’ve taken such a reputational kicking and they now all owe money! And I imagine half of them are raging with the other half.

I can’t imagine they’d appeal, talk about throwing good money after bad.

It's interesting that it is becoming commonplace across media outlets to see the use of the word 'controversial' when reporting about Stonewall now. Using the word as a descriptor for both the organisation, it's stances on sex/identity, or it's workplace diversity champions scheme - often all three.

This is not something that would have happened until relatively recently. Outcomes like today, although Stonewall apologists will crow about 'winning', increase that momentum. The narrative is changing, the media is not wary of the 'no debate' backlash anymore.

The 'trans identity of 2 year olds' affair this week was a massive self harm. The Allison Bailey ruling against GCC as a Stonewall partner just days later massively undermines the future viability of their existing money making schemes.

There is further battle ahead no doubt, but Stonewall has suffered lethal wounds, they cannot continue as they are doing.

Well I for one doubt there will be much celebrating at Stonewall HQ this evening. In fact, they should be shitting themselves.

Well, I'm sure all of these brave Diversity Champions are totally unperturbed by today's result and will all be standing by Stonewall.

www.stonewall.org.uk/diversity-champions-members

Oh, the list seems to be not visible any more. What a pity.

sex-matters.org/stonewall-champions-list/

We saw the downfall of Kidscape - and that was (by the looks of it) woeful incompetence and naivety that did that.

This is far more sinister, and the crash will be greater.

Same deal - anyone who uttered anything negative (big head alert - I thought they were a load of well meaning nutters and did say so at work when they wanted to raise funds for them) got the reaction of someone saying ‘I like to torture children and small animals for fun’. Until it wasn’t…

It is weird how the TRAs and Stonewall totally underestimate women isn't it? It is like they can't see that we are also people who won't allow them to throw us under the bus. Which demonstrates enormous ignorance of how feminists have fought tooth and nail to get the rights we have and how momentous the uphill battle was/is. We know how to fight in a patriarchy because we have been doing this for a long time. Step by step we are establishing those rights which in law. And we won't give up. Perhaps they will begin to recognise that the suffragettes were not an amusing sideshow. Or, for a quick primer, they could watch the Handmaid's Tale.

The 'trans identity of 2 year olds' affair this week was a massive self harm.

That was a weirdly unnecessary move. I don't know who is advising them, but frankly that really did them zero favours.