Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

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

Crikey. Alison is amazing. 💪

Good on her. That's a stellar team & nobody there is short of work so they clearly think there's a viable case to be made.

(Has MNHQ nixed "fingers crossed" emojis? Can't seem to find one.)

Thank you Allison. What a trooper.
And yes what a team!

She absolutely is!

https://x.com/i/status/2022361518201884825

.

Process is progressing!

Oh wow!

How likely is it for permission to be given?

She is such a strong lady

Epic.

Amazing! Very glad to hear this. Might Stonewall be winding up before the liability for the onslaught of tribunals lands?

Whoop Whoop!! good news😀

I will be a party pooper and say I think it's unlikely.

Fantastic news.

Great timing. Another victory is coming.

I don't want to give up on optimism but realise that's a bias in itself. Where do you think the weaknesses lie?

@HildegardP
The email that Kirin sent to Garden Court was a clear coercive threat.

Stonewalls defence in the first case was that they do not give legal advice.
In the second it was that they do not give advice.
How will they wiggle out of the third ?

It would be good it more generally training organisations could be held responsible for training organisations to break the law.

I think the case foundered on a finding of fact. An appellate court can’t overturn that.

And secondly I don’t think whoever triages cases for listing by the Supreme Court will agree there’s a point of law of sufficient national importance. The Court of Appeal had its go at clarifying how to interpret the novel parts of the law about inducement, that had never been tested before, and I think they will let it go at that.

Just my opinion.

Perhaps it’s worth reminding that the Supreme Court only takes cases where there’s a genuine question of law that needs to be clarified and hasn’t already been, or a justice of the Supreme Court thinks the Coirt of Appeal got wrong and they want to fix.

the British legal system is basically founded on the idea that you get your day in court and the opportunity to have a more senior judge cast their eye over things th check things went ok - so one appeal. AB has already had two.

Is there a principle of law at stake here that’s vital to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland toast means the SC should spend time on it? In FWS we know what that point of law was. What is it in Bailey vs Stonewall?

Yes they can overturn a finding of fact if it is not rational, plainly wrong or where evidence at the original hearing was not properly interpreted although i accept the bar is high.

in this case if i recall correctly there seemed to have been a decision that there was a level of remoteness where the actions of the employee at stonewall and had no direct knock on effect.

I think it is an important point of law and should rightly be heard but i have no view on the outcome if heard at all.

This is how Allison described the point of the previous appeal

The central question in the appeal is whether it is lawful for an organisation like Stonewall to protest about someone’s protected characteristic to Garden Court Chambers as a member of its own Diversity Champions Scheme – and then avoid liability when its scheme member unlawfully and discriminatorily upholds that complaint, as occurred in my case.

I was hoping that inducement might still be sufficiently vague but the question to which I hoped the case might furnish an answer is; should persons & orgs who hold themselves out as expert sources of training & advice be liable for their clients' implementation of what turns out to be utter bullshit? [stares hard in the direction of both Stonewall & McKinsey].

I agree with that question. But if the question is as spannasaurus states then I am not so confident. If it is put in complaint terms, that an organisation incorrectly upheld another organisations complaint, then that sounds too tenuous to put on the complainant.

I know, I cannot fault her for trying, I think eventually we have to have case law or statute that makes these clowns liable for the duff services they flog.