Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

https://x.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1979480101474443398?t=Sg3wz-Pq2S7lpQ2rTpJZ2g&s=19

KM the private citizen could write misogynistic stuff to GCC and they'd ignore it (probably), but as a Stonewall employee asking GCC to do something they're going to give weight to what KM says and probably act on it. Why is this so difficult to understand?

At that time SW was seen as moderate and respected.

At that time. 🔥😂Never cross this man.

Thanks Myrtle, copypasting beyond the call of duty and I hope your recovery is speedy now.

Going back to this (sorry I’m still catching up), what a really good post. It puts the legal point so well. Thank you, @WandaSiri.

Well done Myrtle! TT were also doing a stirling job for something that clearly needed to be articulated precisely. I've only skimmed it but I find these nitty-gritty points of law just as fascinating as the absurd "i am biological" stuff - more, in fact, because both sides are required to be coherent!

I’m still watching yesterday’s events. I’m struggling with the respondent’s case….its all very dull in comparison to BCs delivery and very bitty

Wasn't there something about KM telling GC "I trust you'll do the right thing"?

What did he intend by "the right thing" - did the ET examine that?

Yes he did i think the evidence he gave was that he wanted a public denouncement of this not a sacking and the tribunal found it to be credible

IO was like that with her oral submissions to EJ Goodman. It’s hard to follow her when it seems like she’s doing it on the fly.

If the Court of Appeal judges don’t find it (KM’s evidence about her email) credible, can they effectively overturn the ET’s conclusion? Or would that require them to overturn a ‘finding of fact’ which presents a barrier?

Bearing in mind Ben Cooper’s point that KM’s intention is irrelevant under the actual wording of the EA2010 (ie BC has raised a point of law), could the judges use this to get over that barrier?

Maybe that's because the ET panel hadn't been immersed in this issue as much as other people.

There wasn't a woman here who didn't read that as 'nice little practice you've got here, shame if anything were to happen to it'.

The TRA culture of violent harassment, bullying, doxxing, firing and arrest made the words in that email as menacing as they could possibly be. Especially as Stonewall were seen as the figurehead.

It was totally shocking to see their representative as some twit needing support animals and their mummy with them when they gave evidence.

The ET didn't see the context, and I bet the appeal panel don't either.

IANAL and i am not particularly knowledgeable about procedural rules, but i think that the Court of Appeal do not interfere with a finding of fact unless it breaches the law, so i wonder if that is part of BC submissions, that it does not matter what the intended or outcome was just the act of complaining in of itself that caused the resulting discrimination. Als that the Tribunal were interpreting S111 to narrowly.

Yes. Using a point of law to ignore a finding of fact the lower court(s) made is extremely common, if the appeal court doesnt like the outcome below but cant justify saying it's one of those v rare cases where they can overturn a FoF below.

To me that is a key point - KM wanted GCC to do something to indicate Allison’s tweets etc. were wrong/transphobic which meant KM was asking GCC to refute /remove Allison’s right to express her protected belief I.e. discriminate against Allison. I consider that to be evidence that A induced B to discriminate against C.

However, ANAL nor am I a court of appeal judge and the arguments are incredibly nuanced and based on interpretation of not just statute but also case law.

This is exactly what I was thinking yesterday.

The context of how SW consistently behaved towards anyone who stepped out of line.
When Graham Linehan wrote to them to ask them to help ‘take the heat out’ of things on SM.
They said no.
They didn’t ignore him, they actually refused.
Think of that?!

Behaving like arseholes is what they do best, but of course none of that is relevant to the CoA.
When i was watching it on YT, I kept saying ‘oh come on!’
That would be my own legal argument.

The discussion about causation involved a really difficult area of the law and I think went over IO's head a bit.She also got lost when the Bean commented that with attempts you don't need the harm to result, but intention is necessary. This kind of area will always involve lots of abstract 'what iffery' which she didn't seem to have thought about. But these judges have to, and they need answers. If she is right that the behaviour of GC broke the chain of causation, so that SW were not party to the discrimination against AB by them, so they aren't responsible for that outcome, did SW nevertheless attempt to induce them to discriminate unlawfull?

As far as i understand it Ben is also arguing that the normal principles of Tort do not apply to the EQA s111 and that it should be deemed a new or stretched concept, or it will have no effect.

A ‘bold’ approach!

I've only just caught up watching the appeal on YouTube and apols if I've missed somewhere on thread - but does anyone know long the judgement might take? Hoping quicker than the tribunal outcome!

I was just about to ask the same.

If I recall from previous cases it’s a bit like how long is a piece of string as it depends on availability to find time to review the evidence, reach a decision and write up the decision. I would hope it is before Christmas.

If I remember correctly there is one final appeal for either party and that is to the Supreme Court. However, either the CoA or SC would need to agree it was a point of law that was important enough to go to the SC. As there is no case law regarding the specific section in the EA2010 which Allison appealed on it might meet the requirements.

FWS got to the SC because it was a point of law that fundamentally impacted the interpretation of sex in the EA2010.

This is what Allison said on X

"We await the reserved judgment, which will be handed down in the coming weeks or months, likely around the new year".

It's a difficult legal argument, dont hold your breath.

Thanks, that's all really good to understand. I'll not hold my breath!

Adding the link to the thread preparing for the judgment here
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5461249-allison-bailey-judgement

Is it better to move them to this thread? They can read the tweets about the case here?

Or shall I just post a link to this thread on that one?

The confirmation it will be handed down tomorrow.

https://www.court-tribunal-hearings.service.gov.uk/court-of-appeal-civil-daily-cause-list?artefactId=a692f7f5-e37a-4883-8fe6-9c35711cc306