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

There was a billionaire,
Surely too rich to care,
Stood up for all of us.
I stuck my fiver in.
Let in the sunlight,
Saw Stonewall talking shite,
I can see a better time,
So let’s keep gardenin.

No & no.

Someone upthread commented that this is likely to mean employers are more likely to settle this sort of case in future.

Do any legal types around think that some of the ongoing cases may be settled before reaching tribunal, or is it too late?

Thinking eg of the social worker case (which I need to google as I have some seeds to plant this week).

Fab song, fab chorus

This will be in my head all day!

I'm disappointed to see the Daily Mail using Allison's tribunal as an excuse to push an anti-immigrant/anti-traveller narrative in the very first paragraph.

Founded almost 50 years ago, Garden Court Chambers has built a top-notch reputation for fighting Left-wing causes.

Be it securing last-minute injunctions to stop asylum seekers being deported to Rwanda or fighting for the rights of gypsies and travellers, its line-up of 200 well-paid barristers are there to help.

I've just come across a link to Allison's tweets and next to some of them (not all) it said 'complaint upheld'. I'm not quite sure what this means - and why it only applied to some. Can anyone explain?

Barristers advise clients on probability of a win based on evidence and appropriate case law or earlier tribunal judgments that set the landscape.
Any organisation that has legal insurance will need to reach a certain barrier of likelihood of a win to proceed - quite a bit in excess of 50/50. Clients with money can do what they like ie go ahead with court despite very low chance of success and against barrister’s advice but any case similar to Alison’s will be looking hard at this. Also, barristers/solicitors/judges will be taking lessons from how both Allison and Maya’s cases ran.
Some parts of that judgment ie mention of bundle preparation were there to suggest that this kind of sh!tshow should be avoided in future. Effective tips and tricks to be copied, unsuccessful ruses not attempted again or dealt with swiftly during the huddles they went into at various points

Does Allison have to pay for Stonewall's costs? I've seen that stated several times on Twitter but I thought everyone was liable for their own costs in this case?

Not trying to derail, but this is very good news regarding compelled pronouns, and it just seemed nice to put it here.

4w.pub/compelled-pronouns-violent-offenders/

Very unlikely, cost are rarely awarded in ET cases.

As far as I am aware everybody is responsible for their own costs, except in VERY exceptional circumstances.

I think SW will be stuck with their own bill.

An alternative view is the Mail is pointing out that they’ve done all that, yet here they are discriminating against a black lesbian.

Well there are three of us on this one thread who are Eddings fans, I knew my people would be here.

I think SW will be stuck with their own bill.
Which will be hundreds of thousands of pounds and in due course be clearly detailed in their annual accounts. Not.

Yes, exactly. When they plop in here to tell us all how what bad value for money we got, or how 'it's just not that important' etc etc. They don't seem to understand that we will keep going, no matter what.

I donated to Allison and many others, with full knowledge that she may not have won any part of her claim, but that the sunlight this case provided on Stonewall's tactics was worth its' weight in gold. (Not to mention the comedy value of KM)

And just thinking back to how Maya lost her case in the first instance, but won on appeal - many of us on here know that this is a marathon, not a sprint. But we remain diligent, quietly supporting, digging, gardening when we can.

And that's what the TRAs hate - the fact that there are many thousands of us, and the number is growing. Thousands and thousands of women with money and opinions they don't like, who are not going to just stay quiet and take this shit anymore. And we are perfectly willing to spend our money supporting other women's causes. And we will not stop doing so.

Even if Allison hadn't won any of her case, I would still be proud to support her and many others like her. For many women like me, it gives me hope and solidarity that I'm doing something useful against this crap.

It will no doubt take time, maybe years to unpick the nonsense, but we are getting there, and each case like Allison's is another dent in the armour.

Unfortunately not, they're appropriating AB's win against GCC to attack 'lefty lawyers'

You should always re-read the Belgariad (and the Mallorean).

I'm glad somebody appreciated my reference!

Unfortunately not, they're appropriating AB's win against GCC to attack 'lefty lawyers'

I wouldn't be surprised if the Mail did that but where do your screenshots show that, I don't think they mention AB?

So if Allison hadn’t been able to crowd fund ,she’d be 500k down?

The only people benefitting from all this seems to be pharma companies and lawyers.

funny that.

Thank you both for this. This is exactly how I feel. And yes, it's a marathon, not a sprint.

Do you think lawyers might start looking for GC grievance cases in the same way they look for medical cases.

So is the AB article pushing an “anti immigrant/traveller narrative” or attacking lefty lawyers? Which is it? Make your mind up.

It's the first paragraph (online version) of their report about the tribunal.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11055651/Barrister-wins-historic-battle-victimised-standing-trans-extremist-group.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead

Founded almost 50 years ago, Garden Court Chambers has built a top-notch reputation for fighting Left-wing causes.

Be it securing last-minute injunctions to stop asylum seekers being deported to Rwanda or fighting for the rights of gypsies and travellers, its line-up of 200 well-paid barristers are there to help.

Jess O'Thomson did judgment analysis for the Trans safety network. In in she says:

'The accusations of “Stonewall Law” have been proven a myth - the case was clear that it was Stonewall who benefited most from GCC, not the other way around.'

And concludes the above means: 'Stonewall’s role in advocating for trans inclusion through its diversity scheme is not at risk.''

So it's been proven that it's Stonewall that benefits the most from their diversity schemes (that companies pay for), not companies, but that is taken as good indication that companies will continue to buy in.

Please help me understand the logic, my head's exploding