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

Morning all, trying to listen in to this while in a work meeting, so comments limited, but it seems to me that over the last 10 minutes Ben's gloves are coming off in his critical analysis of Ms Omambala's submission?

That person works in training? Wow, incredible, since they were barely coherent when giving their evidence. For someone so apparently fragile, they've had a pretty influential career. Also being trans is a bit of a gift really, isn't it? A WHOLE industry has grown up around it. No wonder they don't want it all exposed...

I agree with you.

Yes, absolutely. Admittedly IO's skeleton (all five/three pages of it) largely just said 'the tribunal findings were right in the first place' over and over again.

I was thinking about his comments around whether any other protected characteristic would be subject to this level of nit-picking, and his examples of people commenting on sinful gay relationships or disgusting disabilities.

So KM is planning to hire themself out to the police to search for missing dead people? Or just advertise the service on Facebook with a lovely pic of their dog?

How does KM propose to cope with the stress of actually finding 'human remains'? I should imagine it's a pretty traumatic experience for anyone, even the most emotionally sturdy.

Do the poor relatives know that the team tramping through the woods following the scent trail may also include KM's mum and an emotional support person?

The mind boggles.

Perhaps Stonewall can quietly reframe themselves as advocates for free dog training for trans people, and drop the whole obliterating sex thing.

Emotional support animals aren't actually a legal right in this country.
It's another load of American twaddle that we seem to have imported.

What's this "below" the barristers keep referring to? Do they mean their written submissions? It's always below and never above. Sounds like some legal chasm under the court.

The blend of emotional support animal and cadaver hunter seems much more suited to cats than dogs, since cats seem to spend a lot of time delivering bodies to their owners as consoling gifts.

It has now finished and the Judgement is reserved.

Submissions over, judgement reserved, no timelines given on when judgment will be available.

TT tweets

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790671195890680107.html

The reducing or minimising approach - I don't know what to call it in legal jargon - seems a feature of the TRA lawyers' arguments. Don't look at this, interpret that as narrowly as possible, etc. Has anyone else had that impression?

Thanks very much as always vipers for the commentary, the community and the silliness, let's hope Allison gets the result she deserves. 💕

It usually refers to the court 'below', in this case the hearing before the ET.

When you flip the thread to catch the latest

Ah that makes sense CriticalCondition. That hadn't even occurred to me.

How long do Judges usually take to make a decision?

That's RMW's approach to the law.

His misinterpretation of it never fails to concern me.

A sensible average estimate is 3 months BettyBooper. But since this is an appeal on one issue and much of the evidence doesn't need to be reviewed I'm hoping less.

Can anyone who attended give an update on what (if anything) has been said as justification for sharing the personal details of those who attended remotely?

(I did not request remote access on this occasion, but have been out off doing so in future if it means my medical history - the reason for not attending in person - is circulated to a list of people without my prior knowledge or consent.)

Thanks! Much appreciated.

It’s griftable, presumably?

Kirrin's Mum should have told them 'no' once in a while.