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

😂😂😂

For those within easy reach of London who fancy getting a bit more of a feel for the place, Garden Court is taking part in London Open House this year

I’ve resurrected this thread to ask some technical question about bundles.

1. Is is always the respondents responsibility to produce the bundles?
2. Who is ultimately accountable for ensuring the bundles are correctly produced I.e. the respondent, lead counsel, junior counsel etc?
3. Who is responsible for physically producing the bundles?

Thank you

Good question. I think this is a more appropriate place to discuss bundles, than other places posters have chosen to bring this up.

Seemslikeaniceday good question,and asked in the more appropriate thread. Perhaps a legal expert will come along and inform us?

Could this be asked on the Legal board, to get an expert response?

Good idea I have done this www.mumsnet.com/talk/legal_matters/4630497-questions-about-bundles-for-employment-tribunals

Ive also added to the questions.

Anyone who is in or around Ilkley, West Yorkshire in October might like to go to hear Leslie Thomas KC present 'a blistering argument for a level playing field in the pursuit of justice'. This is part of Ilkley Literature Festival 7-23 October and is on Saturday 15 Oct - Leslie Thomas has written a book entitled 'Do Right and Fear No One'. I make no comment.

For those who didn't follow the tribunal closely, Mr Thomas is a barrister at Garden Court Chambers and was called to give evidence at Allison Bailey's tribunal.

Allison Bailey is appealing the decision on Stonewall.

It will be at an Employment Appeal Tribunal.

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1572133035335716865

We're gonna need a bigger Thread. 😉

That should be a good one!

Interesting that Garden Court have opted to accept the result, given that they made a bit of noise about possibly appealing shortly after the result. I'd do the same, in their shoes.

GCC didn't have a leg to stand on with regard to discrimination. They didn't follow their own policies and treated complaints completely differently to other members of GCC.

How does Allison's appeal against the SW aspect of EJ Goodman's decision work? Presumably it doesn't reopen the GCC parts of the original tribunal.

GCC have not appealed the ET decision, so that part is done. AB is only going to EAT for the Stonewall part.

Possibly a daft question but, if AB is appealing the decision, is she able to call additional witnesses and introduce new evidence?

I'm not sure how Employment Tribunals work.

Did I mishear that witnesses aren't supposed to fib, but aren't reqd to swear an oath?

Witnesses do swear an oath, so they are not supposed to fib.

An EAT isn’t a re- run of the ET, it’s more about arguing legal points. An EAT can, as happened in Maya’s case, decide a point of law and then order a seconD ET.

I imagine Allison will be arguing on points of law.

Barbara Rich has tweeted And “considered legal opinion” does get overturned quite regularly. That’s why we have a system of appeal courts and tribunals

I'm going to need annual leave! I tried & failed to follow last time round. My goodness Allison is an awesome woman.

In the Daily Mail now. Stonewall say, "We have not been notified by the Employment Appeal Tribunal of any appeal by Allison Bailey, but should we receive this, we will defend ourselves robustly.’ ". Another outing for Kirren's mum and emotional support dog...

web.archive.org/web/20220920191547/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11230831/JK-Rowlings-lesbian-lawyer-friend-Allison-Bailey-resumes-legal-battle-Stonewall.html

And Pink News demonstrate that they still don't grasp what the Tribunal ruled about Allison's protected beliefs about Stonewall: web.archive.org/web/20220920231524/www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/09/20/allison-bailey-appeal-stonewall-ruling-lgb-alliance/

Allison Bailey, you are a hero.

Thank you for your tenacity and perseverance. It would be so easy to call it a day and let it slide. In fact, I wouldn’t blame if you did exactly that. Follow through can be hard, even (especially?) after a win.

But continuing to pursue Stonewall will have an effect on their behaviour and how it affects all women. They will think twice before hounding other gender critical women, it will cost them money, it will cost them time, and it will bring this to the attention of so many more people. And no doubt more newspapers will be standing ready to report on the colourful courtroom shenanigans!

Thank you, Allison.

Did the tribunal use the words 'conspiracy theory'? Pink News has put the words in quotes but not attributed, so is that "the tribunal said it" quotes or "we made it up" quotes?

Did the tribunal use the words 'conspiracy theory'?

Actually, they did, in paragraph 355, in the section "Indirect discrimination" - specifically relating to "Stonewall directing Garden Court's investigation process". Which was part of the complaint trying to identify Stonewall as directly involved in the "basic contravention" of the EA2010.

But it sounds Allison will be challenging the next part of the judgment - judgment paragraphs 358 onwards, under the heading "The Claim against Stonewall", looking at the "inducement of a basic contravention" clauses in the EA2010.

Although I'm still a bit fuzzy on the relationship between those two parts of the judgment, reading it. The first part seems to be suggesting that the following "inducement" bits aren't relevant, because of the lack of direct involvement, but I don't see how that makes sense.

Maybe that's part of the challenge, so there's two parts: (1) say that the judgment accepted too much "plausible deniability" that the people in contact with GCC were acting for Stonewall, or that they didn't really mean to induce anything, and (2) sort out whatever's going on with the linking of those two sections.

Thanks NecessaryScene. Yes, Para 355 ends "Alleging that Stonewall directed the complaint process was a conspiracy theory." Which still leaves room for other allegations that wouldn't be a conspiracy theory. Wait and see I guess!

My understanding is that EATs cannot introduce new evidence, but how about proof that evidence was false? For example SW claiming they were not campaigning against women's rights when there is evidence that they were trying to remove single sex exemptions.

According to @SpinCityBlues on another thread, parties challenging tribunal decision with new evidence should seek review not appeal:
www.xperthr.co.uk/editors-choice/parties-challenging-tribunal-decision-with-new-evidence-should-seek-review-not-appeal/103155/

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4637644-allison-bailey-appeal?page=2