We are returning to the Central London Employment Tribunal hearing re he costsin the case of Ms L Amidon v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.
The Employment Judge Keogh will either give the panel's decision or advise how much longer the panel will deliberate.
Our reporting is not verbatim. We report in good faith and make every effort to do so accurately. Tribunal Tweets is a volunteer collective of citizen reporters. We cover legal proceedings that relate to freedom of speech and belief: primarily employment tribunals.
Please consider supporting our work with a paid Substack membership - the link is in our Substack. tribunaltweets.substack.com
We hope to be reporting on the costs hearing in the case of Ms L Amidon v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust today.
We cannot hear the judge but understand the Tavistock's barrister is requesting that the hearing should be held in private under rule 52(3).
Judge Keogh confirms the hearing is in public.
Abbreviations
J - Judge Keogh
B1 - barrister for Lynne Amidon
B2 - barrister for Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
LA - Lynne Amidon
T - Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
ch - costs hearing
Claimant’s barrister - Emma Walker
Respondent’s counsel - Thomas Corduroy
Claimant’s solicitor - Elliot Hammer
Respondent’s solicitor - Sarah George
Claimant - Dr Lynne Amidon
Respondent - Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust
We hope to be live tweeting anonymous PQ vs civil servant Andreas Mueller and others from Leeds ET shortly.
Mr Mueller is being taken to this employment tribunal for making gender critical statements and for being a founding member of the Sex Equality and Equity Network (SEEN)
in the Civil Service (SEEN CS).
A colleague (PQ) is taking Mueller, a government department and the Arms-Length Body (ALB) where he works to an Employment Tribunal. The claimant is also seeking to shut down the SEEN CS staff network.
The case relates to the establishment of the civil service SEEN network.
Yesterday's private session overran into today's. We are therefore not sure what time the public hearing will start today.
Afternoon part 2:
RW: Discussing nature of 'necessary' - many attempts by law lords to nail this down - plainly a much higher test than 'desirable and reasonable'
RW: But - we are talking about discrimination here
There *have* been tests that vary by size of an organisation but those have largely fallen away and, discrimination is discrimination.
RW - pos one adopts to play break shot, bend over the table,
EH - stance is an imp part of break shot
RW - strength in stance is relative strength
EH - to the extent that you are balancing against gravity
RW - you need to balance urself againt gravity when bent
EH - you have to resist falling over
RW - not just not falling over, hold a very stable position
EH - not all players use a stable break position, they are dynamic and use absolute strength
RW - so it depnds on stance
EH - putting all movement through shoulder and arm is abs