Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

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

Myrtle, you are a marvel.

From TT2

BC which is the provis in relation to inducement
My learned friend relies on that.
My submission is that it is not what that subsection implies. [refers to p834] the Authorities Bundle para 917

You will see directness is addressed. The inducement does not have to be direct can be indirect...that draws on auth to earlier caselaw in Teachers of Dancing [refers to bundle]

From TT2

What SubSection 4 is doing is making it clear that an inducement may be implied by bringing it directly to the inducee

The effect to broaden the narrower scope of inducement. Not saying anything about the scope of causation. The statute doesn't need to specify in relation to that. In my submission Section 111.2 page 29
Number of points:

From TT2

BC Right and common ground that the term cause doesn't imply a conscious motive on the part of person A and that must be right or it would be inconsistent with emp law.
It is necessary to analyse the scope of obligation to find what the defend ought to be held for
the eat is wron

From TT2

in my submission in supplying the test because as I have indicated the duty bearers need to know what it is they are and aren't allowed to do

From TT2

Para 123 of decision p71 of bundle: EAT says second line - does not depend on test of foreseeability, but it will be relevant but will depend on facts.

Similarly the emph EAT places on para 115, p70 on the precise causal relationship between A actions and B's response is in my submission unworkable.
What the EAT appears to be saying is that As actions need to be the direct trigger for the discrim thought process of person B

From TT2

You can have a situation where A and B share the same prejudice person A would not be liable.

The EAT approach unworkable and the only approach that is stable is to refer back to the underlying causes of action, that is consistent with authority.

From TT2

The leading auth [quotes Authorities bundle] the core point p276 para 69
Tab 5

From TT2

He IDs establishing the scope for which the def may be liable in tort.

[discusses case]
A case of law and judgement - the correct criteria to test whether Person A ought to be held liable to the primary fact it had found.

From TT2

J - asks Kuwait Airways what para?
J - extra criteria value judgments?
BC exactly that
para 70 elaborated on epithets lawyers rely on

From TT2

BC refers to more civil case law.
This is an entirely unique statutory tort it is not immediately apparent which of those ought to be selected for those purposes,

From TT2

BC - discusses an underlying test in relation to EA and foreseeability and its requirement and losses from discrimination
BC - refers to Tab 8 of Authorities Bundle...

That works

From TT2

..uses this example - unfavourable reference...P365 para 15 - I will focus on para 18 no rule of free choice...same point para 19. Para 20 dealing with foreseeability.
[quotes this example regarding supply of information]

Ben’s got an authority! This calls for a happy dance on the head of a pin with the angels.

(I may have joined Myrtle on the lunchtime painkillers.)

From TT2

BC - Para 21 the illegitimate reason for an adverse reference. It is not too remote, it is close and direct...
If you were to transpose this to present case, they fit like a glove

From TT2

In this case Mr Metcalf made a complaint that was the very kind of thing to lead the person being complained to doing the things in the complaint. In this context of discrim leg the relevant criteria

• does it break chain of causation - the criteria are the illigitimate purpose and prescribed motivation. Was this objectively liable to be treated in this way it does not require the intention of the person doing the thing

J - asks for clarification
BC was this the sort of thing to be treated in this sort of way by the recipient.

From TT2

BC I have made my point that both of alt test beg the question, if you take EAT test you end up asking, what are the criteria of justness? And that is back through legislation

BC - what is direct and indirect in this situation. This leads back to purpose and the primary cause of action. And those criteria and give stable basis for know where you stand.

BC if a public service provider does something less favourable to B or C, they will be liable to consequences if it leads to discrim against C.
BC - deal with inducement next

From TT2

BC - para 59 p18 of bundle. It is common ground that an inducement need not involve carrot or stick but may only involve persuasion or encouragement.

BC p 33 and 34 of auth bundle
Also whether or not Person A intended the contravention that occured...
Para 60 it is perfectly natural that person A induced person b where person b makes a complaint

From TT2

BC the broad interpretation of inducement must be implied
So the relevant ingredient of liability for inducement are P62 [discusses discrim process and outcome between A and B]
[some discussion about J question about inducement]

About relationship between inducement and causation.
BC - these are obviously ways of overlapping. They are intended to be broad and not narrow
J - asked about meaning of meaning of word 'induce' in this context.

BC - I think I can draw the threads together by addressing grounds - ET and EAT
Any questions so far?

From TT2

none
BC Ground 1 ref to skeleton argument. p37. the EAT doesn't matter for these purposes.
Ground 1 follows if you agree with me, in relation to correct test. The tribunal didn't apply that test.

I'm catching up and just reach BC's "there is no hierarchy of beliefs here" part. Excellent!

From TT2

Doing the best we can the chain of causation was broken because KM didn't intend the specific actions of Garden Court.
[discusses issues of protest]
Ground 2 is to the effect that even if I am wrong about what the test is and the underlying causes of action on

From TT2

any view in this case, it would be fair and just to hold Stonewall liable becasue of all the factual features of KM's actions. Which I have outlined and recapped in skeleton argument.
Ground 5 -failure of tribunal based it's dismissal of inducement by primarily on its findings

to the effect that KM was not intending to threaten damage relationshipo and GCC did not perceive. The tribunal didn't apply the correct test in relationship to inducement and because it didn't apply could only find as it did.

From TT2

BC - on KM own evidence what he intended was to induce GCC to do something that would amount to unlawful direct discrim. He is liable for any detriment to the claimant that follows from that.

There are all these routes to establishing liability
Error of Emp Appeal Tribunal - there are 4 of them.
1 Ground 3 the Emp appeal. para 67. reasonable liability and the test for it.

Abundant evidence before Tribunal that all sorts of respectable orgs have been inclined to discrim against GC people.

BC - GCC had expressed views similar to KM

1. EAT outside remit: Para 67.2 Stonewall complaint was itself a legit manifestation of beliefs under EA - this is neither here or there. Everybody is entitled to hold beliefs and that would apply to KM.