Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 3

[ickky]

If you want to observe send an email to

[email protected]

Subject line

Ms BM Kelly v Leonardo UK Limited Employment Tribunal – hearing Case number: 8001497/2024

Ask for the link and pin to observe.

State you are a member of the public and give your full name and the email address you will use to access the tribunal.

Abbreviations:
C or MK - Claimant, Maria Kelly
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for C
KW - Katy Wedderburn, solicitor for C
R or L - Respondent. Leonardo UK
ST - Susanne Tanner KC, barrister for R
J - Judge
P - Panel member
GC - gender critical
GI - gender identity
AL - Andrew R Letton VP People Shared Services Leonardo - respondent witness

Tribunal Tweets coverage here

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd

Thread 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5416903-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-29th-september-10am?page=1

Thread 2 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5420656-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-2?page=1

My feelings on: @ickkyand @nauticant.

That would be good, but I can’t be the only person not understanding if

” It wasn’t long before her case caught the attention of JK Rowling, the Harry Potter creator, who shared her support on social media. Rowling’s endorsement quickly raised thousands of pounds for Morrison's case, doubling her initial £15,000 target with donations from over 1,000 backers.”

That’s from someone’s Facebook post. I’ve found several similar mentioning the 1000 backers, but they are either behind paywalls or from GB news.

There is no way at all I'd prevent someone else having the pleasure of being thread manager. Especially since the Darlington nurses ET might end up being special.

The only real requirement is being sure you can be around or to plan for when you're not. A bonus is providing a series of consistent threads that refer to each other so people can navigate them readily.

Just interrupting with a bunny service announcement. I've just learned that you can vote for the bunnies every seven days!

IIRC JKR makes sure the cases can go ahead but strongly feels that the multiple small donations add heft to the fact that its not a niche opinion.

I would be more than happy for you to do them, I was hoping someone would as I won't be around for all of it and Nauti has already gone above and beyond for the Peggie Tribunal threads.

Plus everyone has been very good about not filling up the next thread if it is posted early.

<runs away from the responsibility of the Darlington Tribunal screaming hysterically>

😂

It is a far, far better thing that you do, than you have ever done

That makes sense. Thank you.

Oh God, I hope Darlington nurses doesn’t go on forever like Sandies case!

OK, I’ll host the threads unless someone else desperately wants to do it. I’ll start something soon because a) people will want to get their observation requests in and b) the press might start anticipatory stories.

Good work! Just as a suggestion for some links apart from Tribunal Tweets:

https://x.com/DarlingtonUnion

https://christianconcern.com/comment/the-extraordinary-case-of-the-darlington-nurses/

https://sex-matters.org/case-briefings/bethany-hutchison-and-others-v-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust/

Cool, thanks, I’d found some of those and was busy googling the barrister, who is a new one to us.

Who is their barrister @ThreeWordHarpy

Bruno Quintavalle

Well, he represented them earlier in the year, I presume there won’t be a change at this stage.

He’s a founder member of an anti-abortion campaign group, which fits with the case being run by the CLC.

I wonder if the respondents lawyer (who is it?) will use their christian beliefs against them, like JR tried to present sandie as racist as if that removed her right to women only spaces.

Oh, according to a TT report I came across of a hearing in April the Claimants' counsel was Pavel Stroilov and the Respondent's counsel was Simon Cheetham KC...

Digging a bit further I see that Mr Stroilov who represented the Cs at that hearing is a solicitor who does work with CLC. I'm sure they'll instruct senior counsel for the merits hearing!

it seems he isn't a real lawyer and was involved in the alfie evans case. Quite a bit of criticism of him online although tthat could be one sided

I think solicitors will have something to say about the suggestion he isn't a real lawyer!! Lawyer is a general term that covers solicitors and barristers.

He is a qualified solicitor (although might have been a trainee at the time of another unrelated case in which he came in for some criticism). For the final hearing in this case I would expect the solicitors on both sides to instruct barristers of similar senior rank (although that doesn't necessarily mean KC) and experience.

I've started a new thread here: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5423587-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread

Perhaps we can carry on the Darlington case there?

No more gardening currently needed for Sara Morrison.

I get/got reminder bunny emails (I do like Bruce and Watson, though really struggle with the strawberries…I get flashbacks from the Watership Down movie!).

That’s very good to read. How do you know?

@Octoberaddsagale messaged and asked.

@MyrtleLion MakeUK purports to have more employment law competency than the average trade association. They claim to have 70 employment solicitors, barristers and HR professionals on staff, and list their success rate at tribunal as 95% - suggesting that they are providing legal advice and representation to their members. That's why I think AL thought he could rely on what MakeUK was saying without recourse to an external employment laywer - MakeUK was providing him with that legal advice, from qualified employment lawyers, that Leonardo was paying for anyway through their subs. The "meet the team" section here clearly identifies solicitors and barristers with employment specialisms, and makes clear that MakeUK is a one-stop shop for proper legal advice, with no need to go to a law firm.

https://www.makeuk.org/services/hr-and-legal

MakeUK are also clearly 100% captured - if you go to their page on EDI advice, there are three sections: https://www.makeuk.org/services/hr-and-legal/equality-diversity-and-inclusion

One is video explainers, one is training, and a whole section just on supporting trans and gender diverse employees - no other protected characteristic is even mentioned, let alone gets its own section (and of course, trans and gender diverse is not a protected characteristic in the EA anyway). With that kind of positioning you can see how someone like AL might have got the idea that there is a hierarchy of protected characteristics - trans with its own entire section, the other eight nowhere to be found and not even mentioned in the section focused on EDI.

I also think that if Leonardo loses this tribunal and suffers financial penalties as a result in an award to MK and possibly her costs as well, they should consider reviewing all the advice they received from MakeUK to see if they have a claim for professional negligence.

I bet you anything, though, that MakeUK never provided anything concrete on this case. It was probably all in stuff like training they delivered, or the flyers they were sending their members saying trans people could use the toilets of their preference, which then led AL and the HR department down this road. How much standing those flyers and other training has as actionable professional advice, I don't know. It could be in the Ts & Cs of MakeUK membership - that's where I'd start if I was advising them (which I am not and I am not their lawyer!)