Just had a read through.
The R is seeking a strike out and the initial application was that an Institution cannot hold a belief. (Obviously ridiculous - churches or church schools for instance?) However in the hearing yesterday they rowed back from this obviously realising their mistake. The R changed their claim last minute and were arguing that the holding of a belief would not constitute discrimination. They use a motion (where members voted to uphold the law on single sex toilets) to show they act lawfully.
NC acting for C is saying that PCPs (Policy Criterion or Practice) create a hostile environment. That R’s adoption of other motions (rejection of the Sullivan Report proposals on accurate data and how this was presented, plus social media posts, union flags protesting Let Women Speak events etc) are problematic as a general manifestation of the union belief. Hence indirect discrimination on the basis of a hostile environment as a general state of affairs - resulting in disengagement and inhibiting involvement in organisation/committees/seeking posts etc. NC says she’d expect terms and evidence to be agreed at Case Management stage so this attempt to strike out is heavy handed.
Hopefully Ive got that all about right - any lawyers please do check my homework!?
Judge to review papers and give a view in writing at a later date.
Skeleton argument papers from this hearing were agreed to be public documents Si will presumably appear online at some stage
Looks like this will be a very interesting case. All those organisations who sent those dreadful emails after the SC Ruling last year might live to regret them…