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.

So part of the complaint by ST is delay dealing with investigation/appeals etc.

His legal bod then causes further delay in final answer to case.

@kortneyxzgilda It's not really complex. Defra falls over backwards pandering to Tinkerbell and then realises that they are acting illegally. Judge appears biased and is not restricting time wasting by Tink's counsel asking the same questions over and over in search of a different answer.

From TT:

J: And Mr Calvert - half a day plus - HH how long?
HH: 3 hours
NC: Nothing much from me - allow an hour perhaps?
J: then re-exam. So we are into day 2 here.

J: How long for Ms Adair?
HH: An hour?
NC: Same about for me?
J: So let's say 3 hours altogether.

It really is.

I'm sure in the SP case, the Judge was really concerned about a witness being kept under oath over a weekend. 7 months???! After allowing this utter farce of questioning by HH??

I'm actually angry.

This. Yes.
CA is fantastic!

It's not complex. Civil service followed the law whilst bending over backwards for claimant. Claimant is still unhappy because civil service followed law.

From TT:

J: And EDW?
HH: Say a day?
AL: let's say 3 hours?
J: So then re-exam and Qs, let's say an hour. OK, so, that's about right for 4 days.

NC: I'm sorry to interrupt, but, EDW cannot do 18th Dec - it's the only day she can't that week.
J: So we could interpose ...
AL: Or revert to 14th - CA is happy with that?
J: Yes that is better - we will start 14th

They're never restarting on CA's birthday?

Anyone like to work out how much of the 3 weeks has been spent on the claimants case, how much the respondent and how much Naomi? My guess is something like 2 weeks, 4 days and one.

Yep

From TT:

J: So written submissions - allow for Christmas etc - can we say 15th January?
[some diary-checking etc going on]
AL: I have a 5 day trial early Jan
HH: So do I - could we say 20th?
AL: If that was a problem we could have oral later?

J: 20th would work?
AL: Or we have oral subs the 2/2 instead?
[I think someone said that day isn't possible]

CA under oath for months and has to be cross examined by Naomi on her birthday.

If Tink did not peak CA than HH must surely have done so!

From TT:

J: Written subs 20/1 then; and we will say no written replies, address in oral. We will allow each of the three of you 2 hours for oral subs then.

J: Is that everything?
[all agree to this]
J: OK we will break while we go and check those dates for room availability etc - take 10 minutes while we do so.

[BREAK]

Did @MarieDeGournay ever get her T-shirt?

And yes, I am that far behind.

To be fair a lot of us would pay good money to spend our birthday being the sole focus of Naomi.

This isn't even farcical any more. It is utter lunacy.

She did, bout your version is superior. Chef’s kiss.

.

If CA is really being left on oath for many months (?) what does that mean for her? She can't discuss her evidence, which probably means in effect, she can't discuss the case. She could, however, discover FWR if she hasn't already (welcome, CA, and we understand that you can't say anything ;-) - eta ah, or is she also not allowed to read about the case?), read everything Legal Feminist has ever written, etc. - correct?

While I feel sorry for CA, who has been fantastic, and deserves to enjoy her retirement away from this, my main concern is for Elspeth. What an absolute trauma for her all this waiting.

Idly wonders if the delay will cause ST to take 6 months off sick.

A reminder that Elspeth needed more seeds for her garden even before the extra time - and expense.

TBF, she may prefer to get it over and done with and be able to enjoy her birthday evening free of the concern about what the next day would bring.

This all really confirms for me that this is lawfare funded by someone with deep pockets.

It explains why ST won't settle
It explains why HH is still flogging that poor long dead horse - I'm sure she's aware of the weakness of her case, I imagine she has advised ST of this but ST will be insisting that she continue.

Then I hope ST loses.