Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing Thread 19

[ickky]

Allison Bailey has tweeted her intention to appeal the Stonewall decision.

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1572133035335716865

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

tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bailey-vs-stonewall-and-garden

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
Thread 18 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4574654-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-18

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

The Reserved Judgement (forth one down)

www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-a-bailey-v-stonewall-equality-ltd-and-others-2202172-slash-2020

Google can provide you with a lovely photo of Nettle the support dog.

Apparently he is now in training to detect human remains!

I'm sure there is a joke there somewhere but I'm not clever enough to make it.

Have noticed A LOT of this recently, benefit of social media is that you can't erase the stupid shit you have said. Lots of reverse ferreting de luxe.

Ben is calmly and clearly laying out Allison's position. TT are covering it very well. Does anyone know if there will be witnesses and examinations, or is it a case of both sides setting out their positions before the Judge who will then go away to consider.

My assumption was that there would be no new evidence as its an appeal against the original judgement, I may be wrong though.

Makes sense, thanks.

Just taken the tribunal to my kitchen to put a frozen chicken pie in the oven. Wonder if they realise.

This is a bit boring, I could do with a unnecessary objection from Hochhauser.

Agree, even with Ben at the helm it's been exceptionally dry.

Lunch

Lunchtime!

What time did they say they'd reconvene?

I miss him Andrew.

Jane Russell and her children's tv presenter voice, not so much!

14:00.

TT second half of this morning's tweets

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790336070590054545.html

Are we supposed to stay logged on during the break? I'm wary of logging off as I have horrid memories of previous hearings with grumpy court clerks not re-admitting observers if you weren't able to join at the specified time.

I just asked myself the same question.

I'm staying logged on just in case. They've locked the room and everyone has left.

Can anyone translate the second part of this morning for those of us whose first language isn't legalese?

Was Ben saying that the original tribunal didn't fully appreciate that Stonewall caused the shit show that happened even if they didn't actually make explicit threats as to the diversity programme signed up to for thing or what exactly stonewall would do if Allison wasn't sufficiently tarred and feathered?

I don't want to take any chances with it, so, I'll do likewise.

It seems to me and IANAL that Ben is going through the law and case law about what is needed to show that a third party has induced or caused someone to discriminate. Do they have to have intended for the person to have been discriminated against and do they have to have intended for the discriminator to have discriminated against the person in the same way as they wanted them to or is the fact that they wanted them to take some action on the basis of their protected characteristic enough even though the action they wanted was different.

There's been discussion about whether the intervention needs to cause the action and the meaning of various terms as earlier versions of the Act use different terms and it seems like different protected characteristics require slightly different actions - procure vs induce vs cause etc.

That's what I've understood anyway.

Think a point was made that the tribunal states that the Stonewall complaint didn't amount to either, but the judgement didn't say how the tribunal had come to that decision

Lots of discussion on what causing and inducing actually mean.

Ben arguing that Stonewall don't have to explicitly state what outcome they want, and GCC follow that, for it to be causation/inducement. More nuanced than carrot and stick.

That's what I took away from it, though my attention span was rather lacking.

Well explained Hoch

It's quite eery in the room with all the lights off. I have Radio 2 on - feels very subversive even though I'm muted.

I heard that there was enough evidence in the tribunal's writing to show that Stonewall had caused Allison to be discriminated against, even thought they didn't conclude this in the findings ,and that Ben is using this and defining the definitions of the terms to prove this is so.

Ignore appalling English! Hopefully you get my drift.