Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning. This is Jenny Smith @GoodyActually who will be tweeting from the Employment Tribunal hearing of Maya Forstater against The Center for Global Development (CGD)

There are three respondents: CGD Europe, CGD itself, and Masood Ahmed, President of CGD.

Counsel for Maya Forstater is Ben Cooper QC assisted by Anya Palmer (both of Old Square Chambers).

Counsel for the respondents is Olivia Dobbie, Cloisters.

The hearing begins today and is scheduled to end on 22nd March. We expect to begin with any case-management discussions this morning; the court will then retire for reading days for the rest of today and for tomorrow, with witness appearances starting Wednesday 9th March.

Proceedings are likely to start around 10:00 a.m.

Abbreviations:

BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for MF = Maya Forstater
AP = Anya Palmer, assisting BC
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents

EJ = Employment judge, leading the three-person panel hearing the case.
Panel = any one of the three members

CGD = Centre for Global Development. It is likely that our tweeting may occasionally mix up CGD and CGDE (CGD Europe), both of whom are respondents, but we hope not in any significant way.

MA = Masood Ahmed, President of CGD and Chair of the Board of CGDE

We are waiting for the video link to activate.

This hearing is taking place completely online; the panel, witnesses and barristers are all participating via video conferencing, as well as observers.

The Clerk to the court is introducing the hearing, and outlining the rules of remote hearings.

We need formal permission to live-tweet so I will wait for that point before tweeting further.

We now have permission to live-tweet from the court.

The court has previously discussed some paperwork issues - a list of agreed points between claimant and respondent is outstanding and will be supplied to the court later today.

Now discussing time-tabling.

Responsdents have applied for some reporting restrictrions: EJ feels that this application would be better discussed once the Court has read all documentation, so that they know what the effect of any restrictions would be

BC: describing his expectation of time needed re witnesses and closing arguments.

BC: re the reporting restriction order: had hoped that would be dealt with this morning? Not least because re open justice and document publicishing

OD: agrees with BC's analysis of timings needed.

OD: disagrees with BC, documents can't be published until court has read them, wait to discuss order Weds.

BC: Understands order requires anonymising via ciphering of anyone mentioned. This affects immediately "in case" order is granted. Plus: can't do any redacting if needed (big job) until order decided

EJ: notes that there are 2 half-days will be lost to panel commitments not factored in yet

EJ: notes much press interest

EJ: timetabling is problematic. At best Court will be able to hear evidence but will have no deliberation time and will have to schedule deliberations for an unknown future time

OD: apologises for late coming-up of the restrictions order etc. Suggests strict timing of oral evidence?

EJ: Tribunal members need to retire and consider things, not least with view to setting timetable

BC: no view on whether whole panel or EJ only should decide reporting restrictions application

OD: agrees

EJ: but hearing of it should be in public hearing

BC: indeed, but it would be necessary to discuss individuals DURING the application ... could be tricky

EJ: so perhaps restricted reporting DURING it. Hmmm

EJ: checks all witnesses are in the UK
OD: yes
[note that CGD is an international body so this was not a given]

EJ: court will adjourn until 11 am so panel can discuss case timings.

OD: we do now have agreed chronology and cast list, will send in now.

OD: notes some bundling marking-up that may cause page number glitches - apologies in advance. Perhaps claimaints can help here?
EJ: Am sure we will muddle through
BC: Documents will be the same even if different "versions" [think this just means, printed at a different time etc]

EJ confirms will be OK on the day is sure

OD: MF did an interview with Guardian - Jonathan Glennie, NB same surname as EJ, related?

EJ: Not that I know of!

[Adjournment until 11.00]

[One addition: when reporting restrictions were being discussed before live-tweeting had been formally permitted, EJ read out a contribution from the Court's online chat room as follows: >

"Luke O'Reilly (journalist) in the chat states: "The Press Association would like to make it known that we will be challenging any reporting restrictions, and we will need time for our lawyers to prepare our submission" ]

Court is resuming now.

EJ: Panel will read into the case today and tomorrow as scheduled. Reporting restrictions will be discussed / determined by full panel not just EJ. And this will happen on Wednesday.

EJ: re publishing document: protocol is that a witness statement is only published once the witness starts to give evidence. It seems to panel that documents remain *out* of public domain until public hearing of that witness takes place.

BC: Of course, re witness statements. But, what about barrister opening submissions - they could be [cites precedent]? However moot here, because cannot happen until reporting restriction Q decided.

EJ: Agrees: for now we need temporary reporting restriction.

EJ: And re timetable: No we don't think that restricting evidence or final submission is acceptable. So we panel have looked at diaries and we think we should reserve a week in future [earliest date is May]

EJ: in case we need further *court* time as opposed to deliberation / chambers time

BC: availability very problematic - he cannot offer availability until January 2023 - so we do, please, have to finish hearing this week.

BC: And I will be arguing strongly re reporting restrictions that it's not acceptable to use up the limited time we do have on such a sweeping and very late application. Not acceptable that it should damage the hearing.

OD: Does think the scheduled timetable will work, possibly with single day slippage, we could then do curtailed barrister closing statement but with more substantial *written* submissions for the court. Timetable should still be workable.

EJ: It does seem as if we *must* hear all evidence during the current session.

OD: agrees

BC: agrees, except that OD had suggested that AP could stand in when he is not available; this does not seem right, MF should have her choice of counsel throughout.

EJ: So. We will not gain from me wittering about time while time is short. Court will resume 10:00 Wednesday; we expect to spend Wednesday on the restrictions application.

EJ: Monday will be morning-only.

EJ: Can we bring Friday 18th back into play?

BC: Friday 18th was bcs he has other case hearing to attend but it *may* be pre-agreed and is not likely to last all day; we could well be able to use at least some of 18th

EJ: Thank you. If OD & BC can squeeze the schedule to assist that is helpful.

OD/BC concur

BC: Re restrictions application: OD mentions a recent email, please clarify. We do not even have a draft order at present. We do not know what application actually is in fact.

Pls issue direction that respondent submits draft application by 4pm today

BC: draws attention to Press Association intervention; would be useful to have their response in advance of Wednesday.

EJ: If *anyone* is seeking to intervene this should be done ASAP

OD: yes can do draft application for 4pm.

EJ: notes that Luke O'Reilly has offered skeleton argument, thank you, yes please send in

BC / EJ confirm hard copy of authorities bundle will be sent shortly

EJ: Court adjourns until 10:00 am Wednesday

[And the video court conference call has now ended]

@threadreaderapp please unroll