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.

If ST were to withdraw his claim now would that give DEFRA an opportunity to make a claim for costs?

That's interesting especially

Including the need to promote all view points equally, and ensure their role - to promote equality and inclusion in the Civil Service for everyone - is not lost in pursuit of a particular issue.

... promote all view points equally ? Isn't modifying ST's news feeds in contravention of this?

Isn't this deliberately changing the information sent to one employee because they are vehemently not open to all view points being promoted equally.

Isn't ST lost in pursuit of a particular issue and so breaking the rules with regards openness and inclusion?

Edit: removed accidental not that reversed meaning in last sentence

Here is a decision from a different tribunal case, obviously, on costs awarded against a claimant:

https://tinyurl.com/y23p5t4p

aaaegh… having trouble with the link. Search for “Uddin vs bgc costs” of the link isn’t working.

You can get the measure of how bad a claimant’s behaviour has to be. I don’t think that bar is met in this case.

Quite appropriate!

Dear Helen,

You applied lipstick as best you could but the case is proverbially porcine.

You can’t choose your clients or how doom laden the odd spreadsheet can be. Chin up.

Hope you’re getting top rates for this. Maybe have a rate uplift in the autumn just in time for your Christmas bonus.

Best

etc etc

I think that was the case re ST but the guidance came out long after the case before the court ao can’t be directly connected to it other than the looming tribunal will have sharpened the approach

If I understand correctly what @MyAmpleSheep wrote at 11:39, if the claimant and respondent settle, the intervener can still ask the court to proceed and issue a judgment.
Not sure if the court would then have to do that or if they can refuse? Or what the details would be - would NC continue interrogating witnesses or would the court decide on the basis of what has been heard up to that point?
Anyway, that sounds as if the intervener has a bit more influence on that question than just having to accept what the 'main parties' decide (not sure if it's legally correct to describe only C and R as main parties though)

Just had a look at EDW's gardening page and realised that the original timeframe for this hearing was 4 weeks, beginning June 22nd - which would mean until next Friday the 17th.

That was when AM was still part of the case, and the actual reason it could not happen last year because it was so difficult to find such a long timeslot with all parties involved.

Apparently that time was reduced to 13 days from June 24th to July 10th when the case against AM was dropped, because nobody expected HH to waste so much fricking time running round in circles - and also, if they had only stuck to the originally agreed timeframe this hearing could have been finished next week!

Instead of everyone, including Elspeth who has been fighting this for 3 years, and CA on her birthday, having to turn up again in December...

Incredible.

If a certain someone is reading this thread, and he no doubt is, I hope he also watches that link.

And so much time spent on AM when he wasn’t even part of the case!

I’m no authority here. But if both the parties in dispute reach a settlement then I don’t think the intervenor has any say and I can’t see why the court would want to prevent the parties settling on mutually agreed terms. No judgment issued, and nothing to intervene in. That could include terms conceding nothing to the claimant.

In my head that would be different from ST unilaterally withdrawing his claim without the respondent’s agreement; the respondent could still ask the court for a judgment (which would be in their favour) and there’s still assistance to be gained from an intervenor.

I think. We should really get some input from someone familiar with the process.

EDIT: this is perhaps a long way of saying that if the court is going to issue a judgment it will hear from the intervenor. If the case is settled without a judgment (i.e. withdrawn) then there’s nothing to intervene in.

I’ve just watched that link of Ann Widdecombe. Powerful. No notes until the very end. Even though she does sound like Terry Jones being Mrs Premise or Mrs Conclusion 😁

Actually, on reflection, maybe Terry Jones sounds like Ann Widdecombe.

Do you know, I’ve just googled Mrs Premise and Mrs Conclusion and it’s John Cleese and Graham Chapman, not Terry Jones. Only ever heard it on a record before. An actual vinyl LP. God, I’m old 🤣

Here are the rules on withdrawing a claim:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1861/schedule/1/crossheading/withdrawal-of-proceedings/made

the claimant can unilaterally withdraw the claim; that means proceedings are brought to an end right away.

the respondent can then apply to have the claim dismissed, which means it cannot be brought again.

So if ST withdraws the claim then it’s all over immediately.

Sorry for misinterpreting your post - upon reading it again I think you were simultaneously discussing two different scenarios: ST withdrawing his claim either unilaterally or by settling with Defra, and the part where anyone could ask for a judgement only referred to the unilateral scenario?

So now I understand that an intervener could not stop a settlement between the main parties, even if it was detrimental to them, except for trying to have a word with the respondent?
IIRC someone in this thread at some time said something like 'if it were not for SEEN Defra would/might have settled already' and I probably overinterpreted that.

I think I'm still confused as to what exactly the position/rights of the intervener are in this ET context.

Edit: did not see @MyAmpleSheep 's post with the link from 14:21 before I wrote my reply here, so might have got it all wrong again...

I don't think my post (or my thinking) was very clear, so it's my fault and not yours.

Having found the rules, it's clear that ST can stop the process dead by withdrawing their claim.

So now I understand that an intervener could not stop a settlement between the main parties, even if it was detrimental to them, except for trying to have a word with the respondent?

I think that's right. If the parties want to settle, they can. The claimant then withdraws their claim, and it's all over.

if it were not for SEEN Defra would/might have settled already

As, in, I suspect, if SEEN weren't prepared to kick up a fuss. That would be before applying for intervenor status. If DEFRA settled with ST very early on, there would be no court process in which to intervene. SEEN's hidden threat if SEEN were blocked is a tribunal case brought against DEFRA for discrimination on the grounds of belief, SEEN members now being the claimants.

Does this mean that there is no shadowy figure in the background financing this farrago & that Tink is paying for this out of his own pocket? It seems unlikely unless he had won the lottery. His case must be costing £50-100K so surely he would have started a crowdfunder even if he had a substantial family inheritance?

I'm pretty shocked at the idea of a criminal barrister being "unavoidably required to attend on jury service"! Checking, I see that while in Scotland advocates (the equivalent) are ineligible to serve on a jury, in England a barrister can indeed be called to serve on a jury. Poor jury!

The person paying the barrister isn't their client and doesn't get to direct them. HH will treat ST the same regardless of who's paying the bill (whose identity she might not even know, the funds coming through ST's solicitor).

So we'll just have to wait and see what happens between now and December, and how things will move on from there.

I still have this nagging feeling that the whole 'conversion practices' issue, if passed, could influence things going forward.
Obviously not directly as the events in this case happened back in 2022/23, but then that was also way before the FWS judgment, and still the fact that sex in the EA has been confirmed by the SC to mean biological sex influences how people now look at claims that the statement that sex is binary and immutable is somehow inherently transphobic.

Does anyone seriously think ST would withdraw from this case? All the evidence to date suggests ST is single minded in ST’s conviction of ST’s position, and in the conviction of ST’s interpretation of the SEEN raison d’être. ST does not view the world the same way we do.

I also think ST will not have heard the same things we did from CA’s evidence, and will not have concluded like we did that the longer HH went on, the more the evidence strengthened the cases of the respondent and the intervenor. ST will not have had a change of heart on hearing CA explain her understanding of SEEN.

The only reason I could see ST withdrawing would be because they were unable to proceed, eg financially. But if ST really was under financial constraints, surely HH would have been aware and done a lot more to wrap this up in time?

I see that while in Scotland advocates (the equivalent) are ineligible to serve on a jury, in England a barrister can indeed be called to serve on a jury

Since 2004 in England & Wales barristers along with doctors, politicians, clergy & police are eligible to be excused from jury service on request.

Thanks and drat.

I don't think ST is the only person driving this case - or even much involved at all. We already heard ED's testimony about how she (ED) became convinced the only way forward was to go to tribunal - as though it was her decision alone.

If ST's support in this case evaporates he may feel the stress is too much to continue. He is already on sick leave.

What I find amazing about this case is the contrast between the high legal ambition of trying to relitigate Forstater, and the rather low ability of the claimant and his witness to convince anyone that they actually have a case.
Someone must have thought he was a good person to pursue (and finance) this test case with, but I fail to see what they saw in him. He's got a GRC, but that seems to be it.

It's okay. Round here it's all twenty-somethings with man buns going back to vinyl records. You're cool again.