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

I remember it as follows

Michelle Brewer speaks on the phone to a member of Stag, they then rally the troops asking everyone to make a complaint quickly as there was a time limit to get the complaint in before a meeting about it at GCC on the following Monday.

Back at 10:30 tomorrow.

That's about the size of it.

TT from this afternoon

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790362706819600573.html

resumes tomorrow at 10.30am All the same details to log in tomorrow.

@Boiledbeetle hiya can you post a link to the afternoon session please as it seems the only way i can access the hearing thanks in anticipation

I laughed long and hard at BCs comment. Classic.

Thanks Ickky

I laughed long and hard at BCs comment. Classic.

There are many times in meetings when I attempt to channel BC and think of what he would say.

Was it Maya's EAT at which he said to someone from CGD who'd spoken of his wish to avoid controversy, "It would be unkind to ask how that's working out for you"? (Paraphrase.)

I think about that exchange once a month.

Found it:

BC: If we look ahead, we see email from you on 22 Feb that says there is some PR risk but in UK the PR risk could run in opposite direction. Reflects same divergence of views doesn't it?

MP: Y

BC: It would be unkind of me to ask how it's all panned out...

MP: No comment.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4507443-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-3?reply=115929215&

I'm sure that phrase also cropped up in Allison's hearing as I've heard him say it. I also have an image of him staring at the camera while he said it, although that could well be my menopausal creative brain.

Do the legal eagles on here have a sense whose arguments are stronger?

I think it's this.

If you polish the floor and someone slips on it, you caused them to fall. You might have meant people to fall over, or you might just have wanted a shiny floor. Your intention may not match the result.

If you wait for someone to walk past and then give them a shove, you induced the fall. You wanted a specific thing to happen and it did.

Flowing from that S111 uses both words caused and or induced. So either way somebody slipped.

R argues that there was already an investigation before, so KM as an agent of SW did not contribute in any way to the decisions of GCC.

However sort of glosses over KM causing others to complain on STAG, but that ET held that there was no proof from C that these events interacted.

This is really a complex argument about the scope of S111, and it would seem to me that Ben used other pieces of discriminatory legislation, and subsequent interpretations to steer the Judge towards his view on the scope of S111, broader than the ET determined.

And broader than the respondent would want.

The judge seems to favour Bens accidental argument.

So it seems to me that S111 has never been relied upon before by a complainant.

I have no idea of the potential outcome here but my sense is (based on studying cases to settle interpreting legislation in the courts) that this might go up to the high court at the very least.

Lets see how R finishes up and what Ben says tomorrow.

Thank you Karen and all the other wise women for these explanations.

Sorry to ask. Is that how many?
mother
dog
solicitor
technical support person
emotional support Person
so 5?
minus the emotional person now, so 4?

why did the emotional one leave?

I forgot to say about doubt she will back down until she secures the defeat of Stonewall and its allies for good.

A hero in the making, seeing clearly, her role in the life she has been given.

Through adversity, she has triumphed and made of it, a tenacity to behold.

If i thought God existed i would thank her daily for making Alison.

I have no idea of the potential outcome here but my sense is (based on studying cases to settle interpreting legislation in the courts) that this might go up to the high court at the very least.

As I understand it, appeals from the EAT go to the Court of Appeal.

It seems that the solicitor was doubling up as the technical support worker for Medcalf Cailin66. So, as originally set up (and hidden from the tribunal), 3 support people and one support dog.

I still can’t understand how anyone can hold a presumably well paid professional position if they’re so incapable of giving evidence without both technical and emotional assistance.

Cos they are fragile in a hostile environment, and might suffer trauma innit

Allison has shared her and Stonewall's skeleton arguments, and the bundle.

https://twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1790441959946912058

@yourhairiswinterfire thanks

Any appeal from an EAT is to the Court of Appeal

@nauticant apologies I missed your post!