Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 8

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5551959-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-7

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 existence of the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN). 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.

Please 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. The claim originated because she said "only women menstruate" and a search with her name and those terms at the usual gardening website should point you to her plot.

J: We have to complete CA evidence - half a day?
AL: Possibly a little longer, if NC needs full afternoon plus - a long half?
J: Half and a bit. Then Mr Calvert and [missed] and then Ms Duemmer Wrigle
J: How long for Mr Calvert & Ms Adair?
HH: For Mr C half a day from me?
NC: And very little from me
HH: And Ms Adair, an hour or so from me
NC: [missed]
J: And for EDW? With very firm focus on the issues?
AL: Two hours from me?
HH: Accept time has slipped, we have all underestimated, better to overlist this time? We originally said 4 days but ..

On the bright side, if she's on a temporary contract to the CS for the duration of her evidence...

Yes judge, add a large fudge factor for HH to torture EDW for days on end.

HH could have covered all her questions yesterday if she hadn’t fucked about so much. I think this is absolutely been deliberate running down the clock.

AL: The actual dates may affect the number of days listed? Some weeks we have had only 4 days not 5 to offer. So we wonder whether submissions would be separately later (December)

On the plus side are we all going to be able to go for an afternoon nap after all?

So, maybe there was something lost in transcription...

CA happy to stay for as long as it will take
ST has to go at 16:30, but would be okay with the idea that HH covering for him

Judge decides to faff about sorting out a date for god knows when

J: And for EDW? With very firm focus on the issues?

If he had made HH focus firmly on the issues mayhe this wouldn't be going part heard

@BettyBooper I've caught up enough to be quite glad I missed this morning... and also inhaled a piece of Waitrose Number 1 Lemon Drizzle cake, which was a much better idea. I can take over from now, thanks to you and everyone else who endured this morning!

I have a local Hotel chocolat cafe and am going there to have a giant ice cream sundae.

From TT:

J: This makes a lot of sense, and we will put in dates for everything now.
J: Have you the list of weeks to offer?
AL: w/b 30/11, wb 7/12, wb 14/12 - consecutive - but HH has odd days can't?
HH: [names a Friday and Monday]

J: This makes a lot of sense, and we will put in dates for everything now.
J: Have you the list of weeks to offer?
AL: w/b 30/11, wb 7/12, wb 14/12 - consecutive - but HH has odd days can't? HH: [names a Friday and Monday]
NC [names a day or two when can't]
J: The first 2 of those 3 weeks are not good for me.
AL: So if w/b 14/12 was for evidence - that would mean submissions in January.

ST has to go at 16:30, but would be okay with the idea that HH covering for him

Him?

👍

ETA obvs gif is directed at judge not you.

4 days?!
HH - why was seen set up?
EW - to allow staff to discuss WORIADS GC views in line with Forstater
HH - end of questions

This is clearly someone’s attempt to re-litigate Forstater (as if we needed confirmation)

At what point can EW claim harassment by process?

CA was amazing with her evidence. Really knows her stuff

Ah, just seen this. Thanks @fanOfBen!

AL: So if w/b 14/12 was for evidence - that would mean submissions in January.

January. JFC.

From TT:

NC [names a day or two when can't]
J: The first 2 of those 3 weeks are not good for me.
AL: So if w/b 14/12 was for evidence - that would mean submissions in January.

AL: 14/12 is CA birthday - - she is prepared to attend however.

J: We will have to check whether we can all do that - 4 days or 5 days that week? 4 days.

[ppl are discussing and checking diaries etc]

My notes: though it looks as though I've come back just in time to have nothing much to do...

AL: 14/12 is CA birthday - - she is prepared to attend however.

She deserves a medal

From TT:

J: We could start on 15th to allow CA her birthday ... that is everyone in person? Yes. And then let's look at January - mid January?
AL: MLFs and I have not checked diaries yet - w/b 25th January, or later, best for me.

J: And we will have written subs?
HH, AL, NC: Yes

J: And deliberation after that.

And given how long judgements have been taking to arrive, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't hear a result until a year from now...

This case regarding discrimination and the role of SEEN in the Civil Service seems quite complex, especially with the ongoing interventions.

Yammer Pile on Sept 2022?
ST complaint 2023
ET and threat of personal legal action against EW since 2023
And submissions will now be January 2027?!
ETA - witness CA on oath until December?!

This is horrific

HH: Accept time has slipped, we have all underestimated

WE?

From TT:

J: So, evidence 4 days from 15/12, oral subs begin 26/1. If you all let us know [missed - I think, how many days & counsel to confirm Jan dates] Just let us know when you 3 have worked that out.

J: So CA evidence 15/12 - 3 hours for NC?
NC: Can I say 4, as not under pressure to finish today as that estimate assumed?
J: AL you don't have much re-ex usually?
AL: Indeed
J: And then an hour for panel Qs.