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

@MarjorieDanvers Is that because the EAT judges are sourced from the High Court Kings bench? Just learning for me as no clue to procedural rules.

Thanks

This may be a stupid question, but I’ve always wondered if judges have to make decisions themselves, or can they seek the opinions of their peers?

Eg in this case, section 111 has never been tested in EAT or above.

So does the judge have to decide himself whether he agrees with BCs or IOs meaning, or can he ask his judge mates what their opinion is of how the law should be interpreted?

I highly recommend reading AB/BC's skeleton if like me you occasionally had a hard time following today, the fog is lifting as I go!

Totally agree am in the middle of doing just that, still on Ben mind.

I've been unable to follow today as at work with no internet. Thank you to all the previous posters and Tribunal Tweets for the catch up.
I shall follow with great interest,although nothing could top the original tribunal,bincidents,support dogs,bundle bungling and all.

It's interesting how short SW's skeleton is. They are basically arguing that the tribunal's decision was a finding of fact, which can't be subject to appeal. Only errors of law can be subject to appeal and they say no error of law was made. They go into hardly any detail at all.

Ben's skeleton is very clear and logical IMO. It clearly shows that the tribunal did not set out it's full reasoning in some places and I do think it made an error of law in terms of what "cause or induce" means. I think there is a very strong chance of the appeal being upheld. But the problem with court cases is that you can never be sure!

It seems very clear to me that without KM's letter GCC would not have carried out the further investigation and then carried out the detriments. Even if it wasn't an inducement (although I would say it was as there was an underlying threatening tone to the letter) it was certainly the cause of the detriment.

I am feeling hopeful.

When Shaan Knan gave evidence I seem to recall that they had a bizarre (and rather lengthy) list of requirements as to how documents had to be presented to them.

Do you happen to have a link to that? (Or did I make it up?)

@Karensalright An appeal from an EAT is heard by the the Court of Appeal - that’s the procedure. Perhaps you might like look at judiciary.uk as a starting point for further learning - if so enjoy 😊

Not sticking up for them particularly but we know that a huge number of trans identified people are neurodivergent and this is what all the adjustments are for. I think SK needed coloured paper - which is something I also need - and extra processing time.

Thanks I did, another 2 hours I can never retrieve, for my accelerating trajectory to my ultimate demise.😃

Cause or induce.

Words are so important aren't they. It's crucial that we have a common understanding of what they mean both in law and in life.

It would be silly to go about changing the meaning of words like, oh I don't know, the word 'woman' for example 🙄

Thanks.

Seemed a really bizarre request at the time but I've now tracked it down and I've also read your explanation of why it might have been necessary in threads 5 and 6 from two years ago

lol. So much of ourselves is on these threads. Aston University will be having a field day.

I feel really bad for the 'support person'. Surely it's totally invalidating this persons identity to be defined only in relation to their function / service to another. What about their inner identity or their pronouns? I bet they don't self ID as a 'support'.

They weren't even given a name

Literal oppression.

Very sad to have missed this in real time.

@Boombatty yes I agree somewhat. Ben does not challenge any findings of fact.

What he says is that the facts that the ET found, ought to have brought the ET to the conclusion that the test of S111 was met. And that the reasons they gave for SW not falling within the scope of S111 was not really properly explained, by the ET judge.

So he goes on to explain why based on what they found as fact, should have lead them to a different conclusion. Ergo an error in law.

The respondents skeleton arguments were somewhat “skeletal” in that they just said the ET judge was correct without expansion, and without taking Bens argument apart at all. So was just wishy washy and very weak IMO.

So I am with you, and feel much more confident.

I hope it goes Alisons way, and if so I cannot see that Stonewall will have any enthusiasm for a further appeal.

That is fascinating. How does coloured paper help? I know very little about autism.

Coloured paper is more likely to help with elements of dyslexia, which sometimes occurs alongside ASD - I have a family member who has both, and finds that in her case, a coloured overlay makes reading more comfortable for her, though coloured paper can help.

borntobequiet,

Does it help the brain process what the eye perceives? I don't know anything about dyslexia, either!

I don’t think anyone knows why it works, and some dispute that it does. It may simply reduce glare. My family member says that it makes the text clearer and more sharply defined for her, so it’s less tiring to read.

It’s useful to know about a condition that may affect up to 10% of the population, and has nothing to do with general intelligence.

https://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/dyslexia

I have a condition called visual stress which makes it hard to process bright light. I find text on white paper sometimes painful to read. Personally I don't have dyslexia but either condition can commonly co-occur with autism/ADHD etc.

Oh, I see - because the paper is darker, it sort of quietens the visual signals?

That's interesting. I can't read white writing on a black background, I get strobing, like looking at the sun.

Not exactly because I find a specific colour helps whilst others are just as bad as white so it's not the darkness per se.

I got the impression that Ben took the Judge through why S111 had been breached. SW’s barrister’s argument seemed to hinge around “The original Tribunal said it wasn’t so”.