Allison Bailey Appeal

[BordoisAgain]

She has just tweeted that she is appealing the decision to dismiss her claim against Stonewall in her recent case.

No news on if a garden is needed to be seeded though!

Well done Ben - a very thorough outline of the mess and increased costs that resulted. Also a good point about the crowdfunding: Garden Court's argument that because the case was crowdfunded, they should not have to pay costs is ludicrous.

@chilling19 Indeed if 100% of AB costs were crowdfunded it wouldn't mean GCC shouldn't pay (if payment was judged legally appropriate) it would then I imagine be down to AB to do something 'appropriate' with the money.

LGB Alliance managed 'fighting fund' for similar legal actions is perhaps one appropriate use.

Hah! Love it.

So Allison had to fund over £250k on top of the crowdfunding.

Plus the bundle was so awful it stressed unflappable Ben, let alone Allison, and impacted the advice he could give her.

GCC have behaved abominably throughout.

Howdoes - yes, I think the convention is that other crown funders are donated to. However, given the nightmare that Allison has been through, and a a regular donator to her fund, I wouldn't care if Allison pissed the lot up the wall while dancing on a progress flag.

I don't begrudge Allison a single penny either.

Even if Allison is awarded her full costs, is ‘taxing’ a thing in employment tribunals? (Ie, when costs are gone through with a fine tooth comb after the award by an independent person, and anything judged to be excessive trimmed back. For example , if one party has paid a KC where a lower ranked barrister would have been adequate )

I was once awarded a punitive form of costs, where instead of being taxed down to about 70%, I got much nearer 100% because the reckless behaviour of the other side effectively made it impossible to budget or control costs properly

Which rings a bell here

@Ameanstreakamilewide & @chilling19

Indeed I feel the same. If she said I'm buying a beach house in the Caribbean and will live there for a year whilst I work on my book I'd be totally fine with that.

Getting SW's testimony and records on record was already worth every penny from my point of view.

The general rule in Employment Tribunals is that each side bears their own costs regardless of outcome, so for this hearing to be happening at all surely indicates that the panel recognises that there have been special circumstances?

@Mumsnut hmm interesting I'm looking forward to seeing what happens

OK she is annoying me already

Err Ms Jane Russell - WE have funded Allison right the way through because it is important. You condescending woman.

Fucks sake, I'm getting very pissed off.

They'd better not skimp on Allison's costs because a load of normal, poorly paid women like me had to crowdfund it - taking money away from providing for our kids. We only did that because we could see how VITAL it is for women's rights (and our daughter's rights) because I certainly couldn't afford to go to court for 750k+ if my employer discriminates against me for my GC beliefs.

Justice is out of reach of ordinary women.

If they don't award full costs it will have a chilling effect because the only way women can bring these cases is to crowdfund - who has a spare 750k sitting around? (other than JKR but even she can't fund it all). Why should those who are ruled to have discriminated (and who are loaded) get off scott free off the backs of normal working women?

And as far as I'm concerned, given the stress AB has been through, I hope she's awarded costs at a minimum. I'd be more than happy for her to spend my donation on private healthcare for the health consequences of the stress she was put under or indeed chocolate / wine.

I cannot imagine the stress and trauma of what she's been through and am very grateful she was willing to stand up and be a hero. But what a cost for doing so - I think she's stopping being a barrister isn't she?

On the crowdfunder having an effect on costs.
There was a case in the USA a few years back, so probably no relation to UK law.

Person A sued person B over copyright.
Person B had a crowdfunder to raise money for a defense.
Person B won the case "with prejudice".
The type of lawsuit didn't normally award costs to either side. But because the judge had strongly hinted that he didn't think much of the suit in pre trial discussions, and the with prejudice decision, person B applied for costs anyway.
Person A argued that because person B had their costs covered by the crowdfunder already, that it would be some form of double dipping.
The judge awarded person B full costs irrespective of the crowdfunder against A. The judge said the crowdfunder was irrelevant.

Christ almighty, she'd be a royal pain in the arse to work with.

MS Jane Russell no doubt doesn't ever have to worry about buying her children shoes - I do. I donated to AB's case when my kid needed new shoes and they had to wait longer as a result.

So much for justice for women. Aaargh!

@Mumsnut both sides may have a Cost Draughtsman/ Cost Accountant who will go through the other sides costs with a fine tooth comb to see any that are unreasonable.

The ET can then decide if a cost is reasonable or not. Then they can decide using % to reduce the amount the other side pays.

I can't believe how much it cost.
It's just not possible for any one not super rich to bring a case, surely?

You could theoretically bring a case if you are a union member and they agreed to take on your case - which wasn't an option for Allison of course - as your monthly dues contribute to the union's legal fund, but you wouldn't necessarily have an expensive KC representing you.

I say 'theoretically' because in matters of GC beliefs, most unions are utterly captured...

I should imagine GCC are desperately clutching at straws but the precedent it would set is concerning - it’s effectively means-testing the awarding of costs.

“You won and we would award costs but you are a high earner/had a crowdfunder/are a trust fund kid so we don’t think you need it.”

If nothing else there’s no punitive action against the losing party and therefore no deterrent for others (especially if they have grounds to think their victim will be seen by a Court as too wealthy).

I can't believe how much it cost.

Aside from anything else, I’m given to understand Ben is very expensive (but worth every penny if you ask me!)

Are they likely to reach a decision today?

No, it’s scheduled for 2 days with the 2nd day for deliberations.

Thanks.