Having been otherwise engaged, I've only skimmed this evening's posts. However, to pick up on a few points I've noticed.
As this is a civil case, it is decided on the balance of probabilities. Neither side has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was initially with SP to show that her claim is valid. If the court agrees that she has achieved that, the burden moves to Fife. They could either disprove the claim or show that they had a legitimate, fair reason for their actions.
Regarding discussing what happens, the only restriction is that those who are watching the live feed must not post about it whilst the proceedings are going on. They are free to post whatever they want during breaks in proceedings and at the end of the day.
Any offers to settle that have been made have no bearing on the judge's decision on compensation. They only come into play when considering costs. If the judge considers that SP has unreasonably refused an offer to settle, Fife could be awarded their costs from the point the offer was made onwards. Whether a refusal is unreasonable isn't just about the money. If an offer is conditional on SP accepting an NDA, the judge may take the view that it was reasonable for SP to reject that offer regardless of the amount of money on the table.
Finally, whilst this judge did rule against Gillian Philip in her case against Working Partners, I wouldn't read anything into that regarding his views on trans issues. I note she tweeted a couple of weeks ago that she lost because he didn't believe she was emotionally harmed by Working Partners. I'm afraid that thoroughly misrepresents the decision. That is not why she lost. She lost because the judge ruled that she was not an employee or worker within the meaning of the relevant legislation and the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed. Maybe the law needs to change to bring non-traditional working arrangements like hers under the umbrella of employment protection but, as the law stands, she did not have those protections.