Allison Bailey v Stonewall verdict due in the next week

[biddyboo]

🤞🤞🤞

🤞🏻

Fingers and toes crossed. Good luck Allison!

Good luck Allison 🤞🍀

An appeal can set precedent, but if I remember correctly this isn't on new point of law. However, could it set precedent for who can or can't be held liable?

Whatever happens, I know that what Allison has done has been important, brave, inspirational and ground-breaking.

Thanks for the heads up OP👍

I’m🤞for Allison.

Oh let's hope this goes well

without wishing to jinx the outcome, all these employment tribunals only go one way, like shooting fish in a barrel .

Everything crossed 🤞

Allison

Thank you so much

My not well educated understanding of this is that if Alison wins then Stonewall own and are liable for their advice.

Bring it on.

Fingers crossed

Thank you @biddyboo I was wondering this morning when would we get the judgement so nicely timed.

I do think if stonewall lose they will appeal.

More fingers crossed here.

This is already an appeal. Re-appealing might be possible but wouldn't be easy.

Garden Court Chambers made noises about appealing.

Centre for Global Development made noises about appealing.

OU's initial response re: Phoenix was to 'consider their options' (undertone, including an appeal).

I'm sure that there are more.

However, for reputational reasons, I wonder if Stonewall may actually be the first to contemplate following through on any grumbles should the judgment not be in their favour.

I declare that I have no insight into what's involved here and whether or not it is plausible that Stonewall will be legally held to have given advice for which they're professionally accountable (if I understand the action correctly).

Whichever way the judgment lands, it's horrendous to consider all the high profile, supposedly knowledgeable organisations that have either

• accepted defective advice that has (potentially) landed them in hot water
• failed to perform due diligence about the professional standing of the people who gave them advice on which they based some unwise employment practices.

They can go to the Court of Appeal. EATs crease case law but there are further levels of appeal.

🤞

If say, for example a health and safety company came to your place of work and advised that 'absolutely that ladder is safe there, ignore the Governments law' would they be liable for any accidents? Seems the same as Stonewalls dodgy advice to me.

Fingers crossed for Allison

Yes, but don't you need more of a reason than 'Waaah, we don't like it' to do that?

My understanding was that they'd need to appeal on a specific point of.law or failure of process, and that the bar for allowing it is reasonably high.

The point of law will be the point Allison has argued at her EAT.

ET judge said Stonewall did not influence GCC in contravention of the EA2010. The EAT is Allison saying the ET judge got this point of law wrong. CoA would see Stonewall argue the ET judge got it right and EAT Judge got it wrong. I think this point of law can keep getting appealed up to the Supreme Court.

To add, although slightly different in Scotland, it is essentially what FWS are doing in relation to the Haldene judgement.

Same.

And if they're not liable for their own advice, then that also needs shouting from the rooftops.

'Whatever stonewall tells you to do, you are strictly on your own if they've totally wrong, which they have been on all these different occasions...'

Any remaining credibility of their lawyers like White would self destruct. No longer can they pontificate and opine, when they've gone to court to make sure that whatever they say can be absolute bollocks from a legal viewpoint.

Yes, I hope Alison wins but I think from the point of view of the cause it's a win either way. Either companies have to stop listening to Stonewall because they can't use 'Stonewall said' as an excuse. Or Stonewall is liable, and should become a lot more cautious about what it tells people about the law.

If that's the case, and I do believe it is, then it's a prime example of a Catch 22.

I can't believe how stupid they were claiming that whatever advice they gave to Garden Court Chambers they can't be held responsible for whether it's correct or not. Just so they could wriggle out of any responsibility for the actions the chambers took, based on that advice!

Talk about shortsighted. It's like a Ratners moment.

Oh don't listen to us, we talk crap.

If I'm reading this wrong, and anyone with more knowledge is on the thread, can you let me know?

Hoping hard for a good outcome for Alison.