Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread (follow on from Chair of SEEN is being sued)

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5031904-the-chair-of-seen-is-being-sued
TT substack: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments

Tempest (a TW) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene. Parts of the original claim against the co-chair of SEEN (Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley) and another party (Andreas Mueller) were struck out or narrowed. Another claimant, PQ, is no longer part of the case.

The hearing is in Leeds; the number of online observers has been limited by the court due to "capacity" and posters are reporting that requests for links are being declined on those grounds.

Also to note that Elspeth still has a garden in need of seeds and water to support the ability of SEEN to be an intervenor in this case.

According to AI Standard rates for panel members in tribunals generally fall in the £210–£590 range depending on the specific administrative chamber and seniority. No holiday pay.

I quoted the judges rate earlier, something like £676? They all get expenses too.

There are no court fees for the claimant; it's totally free to the users, the panel being paid from central taxation as part of HMCTS, part of the Ministry of Justice. There used to be a fee (£290-£1200 I think) between 2013 and 2017, but the Supreme Court said they were unlawful in 2017, in R (UNISON) v The Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51.

gowlingwlg.com/fr-ca/insights-resources/articles/2017/supreme-court-declares-employment-tribunal-fees-un

From TT:

[The public session has still not restarted]

My note - if I go and make a coffee it will get going......☕

Suspect this morning will have a lot of dancing round on pronouns and claimant second thoughts from over the weekend...

From TT:

[We resume]

HH: In relation to shd tribunal provide electronic copy of bundle - obviously starting point is open justice - done and seen to be done, public scrutiny is accountability.
HH: C entirely accepts that, however, Q is does OpenJ require full bundle to be issued. [Cites court rules] - deals with WS and yes make available electronically if necessary, but, does not deal with full bundle.
HH: We say, that's bcs physical bundle in room is under court control, but, that's not true of an electronic version.
HH: This case is much public interest but also sensitive personal info, so we argue for controlled release of some but not all documents. Q is, what access is necessary - fair and proportionate - to support public scrutiny.

From TT:

HH: We say, best achieved by keeping the full bundle under tribunal control. 2022 guidance from Lord Chief Justice re remote hearings - recognises that dissemination by remote observers more likely.
HH: [case ref from 2022 involving Guardian newspaper] J: checking we have copies of that - what para HH: 107
HH: Guardian applied for specific docs after a hearing, tribunal initially refused, EAT said that was wrong and some particular docs shd be released. [case is Rozanov ?spelling]
HH: Ruling notes that a lot of bundle information may be irrelevant, and even parts of a doc discussed in cart the rest of the doc might not be relevant.
HH: Clear that putting whole caboodle in public domain is not necessarily desirable. NB it's not just the C - other witnesses, cd be personal information eg email addresses, or sensitive data.

From TT:

HH: Simply disclosing entire bundle is not the right answer, so, C strongly resists the dissemination of the whole bundle.
HH: Ppl should apply for particular docs and tribunal can consider that then.
J: What about issuing the final version of claim, of response, and the list of issues.
HH: [unsure]
HH: I think providing those documents would help understanding of the case?
J: I feel that full bundle will contain so much that is not relevant, would be a distraction really
HH: Just to summarise Rozanov, the grant made was only of certain specific documents.
HH: Also must point out that adequate redaction of bundle wd be a massive task
AL: We are a public body so no Article 8 rights unlike C, but, yes there is lots of email addresses and phone numbers of our staff in there, so the proportionality of the request made - this is discussed in Rozanov

From TT:

AL: So yes we echo the points made re proportionality. Re doing some docs - the pleadings we can't see that there is a problem issuing those, and tend to agree that if specific docs are requested ppl can ask for those they want
NC: For Intervenor - we agree that pleadings and list of issues would not be a problem [missed a little bit]
J: There have been several applications - none very detailed or much argued. We will take 5 minutes to discuss among ourselves.

[SHORT BREAK]

@FarriersGirl do you want me to take over for a bit? (Or maybe, have you missed that tt started a new thread? They do that after each unroll request.)

I'll assume @FarriersGirl has been called away and take over for now...

From TT:

The court is at present taking a short break for the Judge and Panel members to decide whether to grant press requests for access to an electronic of the tribunal's evidence bundle.

J: We are minded to agree to electronic disclosure of the pleadings and the agreed list of issues - we think, not remotely controversial and will be v helpful to press understanding the case.

J: We are not minded to agree to release the full bundle.

J: Re disclosure of witness statements - we place here in the room once each is sworn, we feel that electronic version for press at the same point of time is also OK

J: So we are not going to make any order for electronic disclosure beyond that. If press want any further disclosure must make formal written application with reasons etc for us to consider.

J: Please note that it's for the parties to do the disclosing - if you could arrange this between you. I don't think onerous.

AL: I will take instructions but am sure we can work something out.

HH: If I could also just take instruction from C on that briefly?

J: Recognise that ppl who applied for this will be listening - want to say that I shall issue a written order, tomorrow morning at the latest, but meanwhile we will get on with things.

J: And remind press that the material is only for the purposes of reporting this tribunal. AL, HH do take instructions re witness statements.

J: We will break here for you to take instructions and resume at 11.20

[BREAK]

Thanks I had not appreciated that. I'll pick up later on if you can catch us up!

We're caught up now as they haven't yet come back after "resume at 11:20"!

I'll pick up now I'm on the right thread

Thanks both x

From TT:

[We are still waiting for the public hearing to restart]

My note - Not making much progress

J: And remind press that the material is only for the purposes of reporting this tribunal.

I wonder if this was aimed at anyone 👀

From TT:

[We begin]

HH: Have taken instruction from C - it appears position would be academic as WS already issued to tribunaltweets, I understand by intervenor, it is lucky that C (and other witness ED) have no objections to their WS being issued.

HH: Wish to raise: have been shown a tweet from intervenor solicitor (Levins) on the firm's page what looks like a screenshot of EDW post of 9/7/2022. No order from tribunal for that.

From TT:

HH: All parties should be aware that anything made public requires an order from tribunal.

J: Miss Cunningham?
NC: I think I knew that intervenor's statement had been tweeted yes.
J: From bundle?
NC: C has had the document -
J: Not my Q - what was the source?
NC: I don't know what solicitor used I'm afraid.

J: This case is attracting a lot of interest and there's obviously a lot of conflict - this was not helpful. I don't want to say too much; anxious to do what we are here to do. But I do ask parties to be circumspect; we can't control what parties do.

J: Am not making any accusations. We don't know how this happens.
NC: Implied criticism of solicitor - wd be grateful if made clear so he knows not to do it again.
J: Will reflect on that. Unwise to comment immediately; we will come back to it if necessary.

(I am listening online)

We should have a drinking game for every time the judge says "can we get on".

I am also in awe of Naomi not backing down in the case of a grumpy judge who raises their voice.

From TT:

J: Let's get on
NC: I do have one more point - HH said it was unfortunate the WS had been released. I raised this explicitly on Friday [reads from tribunaltweets] saying in public domain once sworn.
J: Let's not waste any more time.

AL: One small practical matter - re the C supplementary bundle, just want to check you have it in the form you need it, because I'll be referring to it today.

HH: We had not been given a DUC link this morning - let me check if we have had that. No we haven't had one.
J: Who needs it? C's solicitors?
HH: Yes

[short pause for getting the additional bundle pages to everyone that needs them]

It's going to be lunch before they get going at this rate.

Lunch on Wednesday.

Next week.

HH wasting time that would be used for cross examination with unfounded complaint since tribunal had agreed WS was in public domain.

From TT:

J: Docs are on their way.
AL: Thank you judge.

HH: One more point - re failing to moderate Andreas Mueller, you'll remember that there had been additional disclosure re that, I have paper copies and will upload to DUC too - all parties happy to admit.

[HH handing out paper copies of the additional material]
HH: Two sections - docs from C, docs from R, the larger is the C's.

J: No objections to these?
AL: We made no objections provided ours were accepted too.

AL: ST we are going to go through various issues of harassment etc 1.1(xii) in list of issues.
AL: p1791