Good morning and welcome to Day 4 of #ForstaterTribunal, the case of Maya Forstater v CGD.
I'm @wommando live tweeting and we're expecting to begin with reporting instructions from the clerk. Catch up with yesterday here:


Abbrevs used:

Maya Forstater (MF) & her counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

The respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Counsel for respondents is Olivia Dobbie (OD), Cloisters.

EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
EJ: good morning we don't have our clerk so I will give brief instructions. It's is an offence contrary to contempt of court act to record or screenshot but it doesn't stop reporting of the proceedings.
EJ: I sent an email of the reporting order to our clerk but if he's not there it won't have been transmitted to parties. Do you all have the order?
BC: No
EJ: the rules say the order must be put on the door and I've been thinking how to reproduce that and I welcome suggestions
EJ: everyone should refer to the complainants as 1, 2, 3 and 4 and should prevent the inadvertent reporting of names. At the start of each session I will say there is a order in place with these instructions.
It's not a perfect solution but seems to get near to a physical hearing room.
BC: that's seems sensible and OD and I discussed anyone who wishes to attend has to email the tribunal and is told not to share their links so we can make sure everyone attending is notified of order
EJ: just thinking about the practicality, there's a large number of people attending
OD: I think it'd be unnecessary to send the order out to everyone requesting a link as it means they can look up these names
OD: people who requested links a few days ago will not receive the order so I suggest your suggestion is the most way to protect the order
BC: we were recognising in our convo the possibility of someone dropping in and they wouldn't hear your reminder
BC: if it can be done without too much difficulty I think the emails should be sent to prevent risk of breach.. for the protection of the public we should everything we can to notify everyone
EJ: the whatifs are infinite, and nothing is water tight and things can go wrong. (Then talks of other whatifs but says they are a 'long shot' but hopes not 'famous last words'. For the moment including after each break, I'll read it out
BC: on a practical note we should all agree on which is complainant 1, 2, 3 or 4. (Discussion on names referred to as ciphers) it would sensible that each party will ensure whatever table a witness is giving evidence and a copy of cipher list easily.
EJ: 1-4 will be in that order and the clerk has just emailed with order if we can check that. Then the question how to deal with documents.
BC: we now have an agreed version if bundle with witness statements and redactions and a link we can post jn the chat
BC: similarly with the opening submissions which you've now read
EJ: is that agreed
OD: yes we've already agreed redactions...then posting in the chat function is acceptable
EJ: were ready to hear the evidence then
EJ: I'm aware this of great public interest and the court was down to start at 10am so we will begin then
The Clerk reads out the ground rules which covers unstable connections, can people be muted unless speaking, no eating or drinking, chatroom is visible and must not record in any way the proceedings. Public must not distract.
EJ: were about to start evidence. I'd like to ask BC and OD about the timetable. States the order that its a criminal offence to publish names and email address, complainants will be numbered 1-4. The chat room function is not there for observers to comment or exchange views
EJ: the other point is about giving evidence. Experience shows its easier to talk over someone in this format rather than in person. There can be a delay, & its hard to pick up body language when communicating so I ask just give a little time longer than usual to start speaking
BC: I call the claimant to give her evidence.
EJ: affirm or take the oath.
(Maya does so.
There is a link to a redacted bundle, awaiting confirmation I can link)
BC confirms Maya's details and will begin with Maya's statement and asks if contents true to best of your knowledge. Over to OD.
OD: I'll do some signposting as you're going to be sitting there for a while hearing my voice. I'll start with employment status will take most of today, then your tweets etc. Page 23 of the bundle please.
OD: I take it this was a genuine employment contract
Mf: I'm not a employment lawyer
OD: was that your understanding
MF: yes
OD: and that contract came to an end in May and no further contract
MF: yes
OD: (missed) is it your case your employment started on the first contract or the second?
MF: I don't know I just described what happened
OD: I'll go through the lead up to second contract
OD: you wrote (missed) for further work
MF: yes
OD: turn to page 53, email between you and employer is asking what MF wants to do
MF: following discussions about what we wanted to do together
OD: you've been offering your services for research and writing since 2003
MF: not a lot a company as an individual
OD: a sole trader, since 2003
MF: since about 2000
OD: you were looking for funding for a larger piece of work...this was you and V working together and went about getting funding
MF: yes
ID: a collaboration
MF: yes
OD talks of MF directly working with fundraisers...(missed) and you knew at this stage there was no promise of future paid work, all contingent on funding
OD: you were in discussion with another company and offering them the work CGD wasn't interested in
MF: yes there CGD didn't think it fit their mandate and they were interested in pursuing
ID: this is how you ran your consultancy
MF: no not really
ID: turn to 469 we can see your messages with employer (and reads out email)
MF: yes
OD: in Oct 2016 you were told you were a consideration for a visiting fellow. You knew this
MF: yes
OD reads the correspondence.
The two capacities to engage with CGD are not inextricably linked are they?
MF: that wasn't the basis of my fellowship
OD: these capacities are not definite (discusses different fellowships)
MF: they can offer one without the offer but thats not what was offered to me.

OD states MF went looking for work elsewhere
MF: it was an associate position and didnt get very far
OD: it would have been unpaid affiliation?
MF: it was similarly contingent on funding
OD: let's look at the how the visiting fellowship came to pass, page 418, this was the invite you received
MF: yes
ID: and came from the US entity?
MF: I was told CGD and CGDE operated the same
Od: but it's not CGDE
MF: that's not what I was told
OD challenges further and MF states that's not what she was told. OD takes MF through the email which is heading CDG. This visiting fellowship came through before any contract
MF: the two processes weer completely linked
OD: that wasn't my question
OD continues to read out email from CDG.
OD: from the few quotes I'm sure you agree there was no obligation here
MF: yes
OD: even in the one restraint, your affiliation whether a conflict of interest, it doesnt say dont publish, just don't publish with CGD
MF: yes
OD: it's not a contract is it
MF: no
OD: paragraph 25, 26 you refer to a table of visiting fellows which reflects distinction between paid and unpaid. You say your fellowship had a salary.
OD: do you have the doc? 420?
MF: yes
OD: this is the doc referred in your witness statement. The names you give are all visiting fellows
MF: yes
(OD reads out names and whether they had a salary and no office) we can see you have no email or office and has salary.
MF: I did have an email. I'm not sure what this doc was produced for.
OD: you got your email in 2017. What we can see is no pattern of visiting fellows with pay, email or office or both. It's rather ad hoc, there sno strict pattern
MF: no
OD: and we know that CGD does give office space and fellows could use office spaces whether paid or unpaid.
OD: there were other visiting fellows that did substantial work
MF: I don't think so, I don't know
OD gives examples of people
MF: I don't know
OD: moving to second contract...
OD: this was your second contract with either entity, the US entity and its different from the London team
MF: it is
OD: page 498 these were your convos before the contract was issued. OD reads emails
Mf: I was strongly encouraged to be in the office on Wednesdays.
OD: being encouraged and required are different. If you didn't come in you wouldn't be in trouble
MF: if I didn't I dialled
OD: from your own wording it says you 'aim' to get to the office
OD: we can see here you say you will do other complimentary work so you already had paid sources of work for the year
MF: yes
OD: you also did work for tax journal
MF: yes I wrote articles
OD: paid?
MF: yes
OD: we can see your delineating (missed)
MF: yes
OD: and some work was in similar space to what CGD did
MF: it was complimentary
OD: and no prohibition
MF: yes there was
MF: it was by MA and I shouldn't work for clients that'd be a conflict of interests
OD: but that was conflict of interest, but you were free to do work that didn't do that
MF: yes but I was only part time for CGD
OD: we can here you're described as a consultant I this and states CGD should not be responsible for income taxes and invoiced throughout this contract
MF: yes
OD: it was limited in time wasn't it
MF: yes
OD: on page 44 we see your fees was a total that would split on deliverables. So you weren't paid a salary
MF: I don't know. I was included on the table of salary and was paid. I wasn't PAYE.
OD: if we got to page 246 this is exhibit A which sets out the work itself
MF: yes
OD: this was the doc taken from your terms referenced when you drafted. If we look to page 246 there's a summary of deliverables at the bottom
OD: So the pay was contingent on delivering these
MF: On paper but didn't work in practice. The initial plan didn't go as planned and I was told to invoice and I did
OD: while we're on invoices, it was always the case throughout the interactions you had to invoice to be paid...right through to Dec 18
MF: yes
OD: and you created the invoices not a CGD template
MF: no
OD: same for your other clients
MF: yes
OD reads from page 245
OD: so these were written rather loosely, noone was dictating to you which research orgs
MF: yes I did this in collaboration with V
ID: and you decided yourself without input some times
MF: yes
OD: repeats very loose and noone dictating
MF: that's correct noone knew how the work would develop
OD: you could do the work when you thought it appropriate
MF: I couldn't turn down events for no good reason
MF: there was no time table fixed because we didn't know what it would entail
OD: you didn't have to request time off for holiday
MF: no
OD: and you weren't paid when off
MF: no
OD: and weren't entitled to sick pay
MF: no
OD: you say you were considered part of the CGD
MF: yes it was with CGD but considered a colleague of CGDE
OD: the work you did with OB wasn't under CGD contract?
MF: the plan was to build a program of work that would sit in CGDE
(A lot of confusion about the CGD and CGDE)
ID: it says you were invited to lunches before your capacity as a visiting fellow
MF: the two were completely connected. The work I did under the contract didn't stop when the date ended.
OD: You never had to inform someone if you couldn't make a weekly lunch. I suspect its not true
MF: no I was told to come by Hannah and not contractual and if I wasn't coming I was expected to dial in.
OD: you say OD encouraged you spend time at London this was before your appointment and its merely encouraged not obligatory
MF: as I said, we talked about how we would work together and how I would be integrated as part of CGD team & we were strongly expected to be in office one day a week as part of that team
OD: it was up to you as to where you worked from, you didn't go regularly until the end
OD takes MF through her statement where she said this and MF says this is a typo as to when it started
OD: that's not true is it
MF: Wilton Road was the first office, then to new Zealand house then a temp office in trafalgar Square then another office
OD: it terms of attending regularly that's not true is it
MF: that's a typo
EJ: are we using the term 'regularly' to mean 'frequently'
OD: I meant once a week
MF: yes...the days I didn't come in I was travelling for work and about 3 times I dialled in on zoom
OD: Jan and Feb there was no additional work or pay, just what was contained in the second contract
MF: yes I was completing that work
OD: the full grant wasn't extended
MF: no
OD: now business cards were provided to visiting fellows
MF: I don't know
OD: there were othe revisiting fellows who had no contract and were entitled to business cards
MF: I don't know
OD: if we look at 501 of a business card you provided, we can see a gmail address
MF: it's my personal email address
OD: so let's look when you got a CGD email address and you clearly didn't have it when you got these business cards. You got it 7 months into your second contract. You only got it because OD was trying to get that for work and to send out invitations
OD takes us through 551 where OD gets an email address for MF.
OD: that's how it came I to existence
MF: yes
OD: and despite this you still used your Gmail
MF: yes
OD: you referred to having access to the intranet, isn't that because of email address
MF: yes
OD: and that email gave key cards
MF: (missed)
OD: you don't know if unpaid fellows got key cards?
MF: when we moved offices we were taken through safety training and given business and key cards and that was done for all of the team, not for distant fellows
OD: and all fellows could book rooms.
MF: I don't think it would be sent to occasional visitors
OD: it may not have been sent but had they requested then they'd be entitled to use that room
MF: I don't know
OD: hosting events was part of your deliverables
MF: yes and events in 2017 and 2018
OD: and being invited to Xmas party and away day, visiting fellows are invited?
MF: I don't think so
OD: you don't know
MF: no
OD: the use of the term slack in regards to the London team. And you weren't provided with laptop and used your own
MF: yes
OD: and it was hotdesking
MF: yes
OD: and no company credit card
MF: no
OD: wondering when to take a break
EJ: this seems a food a time as any. Well resume in 10 minutes.
EJ remind everyone the order of confidentiality.
OD: you refer to the fact you have a photo and biog on the website and listed as a fellow
MF: yes
OD: and un paid fellows were listed
MF: yes
OD: you were never a budget holder
MF: no
OD: you were never shown how to use sales forces
MF: yes that's right
OD: that was for tracking funding
MF: contacts in fact
OD: but you didn't do that
MF: no Paddy
OD: you referred to two other consultants and who had managed contract with CGD and Vijaya
OD: you accept this wasn't one of the deliverables
MF: not the main ones but those papers needed supervising
MF: I was expected to work with Vajaya
OD: you said this worked as was part of the work I was contracted to do as a visiting fellow
MF: no I wasn't contracted as a VF, I was contracted as (missed)
OD: you didn't line manage anyone?
MF: no
OD: you never had appraisals
MF: no
OD: the second contract was the seed grant and was never extended and the work did otherwise come off. It would be fair to say it was a theme that came up time and again
MF: Yes and we knew that would be the case
OD: your work was international task and illicit financial flows was niche? Not a core part of CGD
MF: fell under sustainable financial flow
OD: it wasn't a topic of the core part of CGD, only you brought in?
MF: initially Owen Barder (and names a few others)
MF gives more info on that. OD takes us to page 631.
OD: in convos where Vajira will propose to MA... this is where its suggested your role was niche...(missed)
MF: I'm not a tax expert I was just working on a tax project for CGD at that time
OD: page 574, an email to Vijaya and Paddy about Maya's contract coming to an end. (Reads email)
MF: I'll stop you there, complainant 3 you just mentioned her
MF: for the purposes of live tweeters
OD: of course
(Missed as im checking I'm not in breach)
OD: we can see your email to Owen you're correcting something he'd written when he'd, in defence of you, page 642, and then you respond correctly him on 641. (OD reads email) so you weren't be paid from unrestricted grants
MF: no
OD: noone offered you a fresh contract?
MF: the funders all worked together and so we had hoped these funders would fund us and pick up quite quickly. When we realised it was going to be longer, Owen and I sat down and talked about what I could do
ID: we can see you're telling Owen you need funding and had understood there was no obligation for you. It was all contingent on funding
MF: yes
ID: at this time when no obligation you didn't know you'd get another contract, you'd booked attendance of other events in the area of tax
MF: yes I was invited to present to the UN in February and the paper ID done with CDG
OD: page 632, we can see an email from you to V (read email) so despite having no ongoing work with CGD you had arranged to go to these events and they were not CGD told you to attend
MF: non of the events through the whole contract... There wasn't a distinction between specific events I was invited to and encouraged to go to.
OD: but you sought them out in your own right
MF: in order to raise the funds was raising the profile of CGD as an org able to contribute to international tax
OD: there was no obligation for you to fundraise
MF: had I said I would turn down events at UN it wouldn't have been looked at well.
OD: at these conferences you could have picked up paid work
MF: no they weren't those types of conferences,
OD: to be clear these are no events CGD told you to go to and you weren't paid
MF: yes
MF: I was there as a fellow for CGD
MF: this was outreach with policy makers at events like this
OD: you didn't secure funding for tax work
MF: yes
OD: and continued to work for Bteam
MF: yes
ID: how much work did you do for the beam?
MF: I'd do nothing for weeks and weeks. I didn't have an ongoing commitment to them.
OD: you also worked for NGO principles for investment
MF: yes
OD: how much work
MF: a single project
OD: you didn't work for another think-tank
MF: wasn't really work, I presented a paper
OD: and you did paid articles for tax journals
MF: yes
OD: even at the point of discussing employment, you did other work
MF: I did
OD: so all of these were other clients you did work for via your consultancy
MF: I did work for them as an individual
OD: your work with Bteam wasn't a piece of work it was ongoing
MF: yes I supported a group they had
OD: by 2018 you were friends with OD?
MF: not friends but we get on
ID: and he was going to stick his neck out for you with your opinions
MF: that wasn't about friendship that's the culture there....
OD: and the third contract, page 247, this is with CGDE rather than the second CGD US, this was work thats wasn't your specialism
MF: as I say I'm not a tax specialist
OD: that's what you'd worked in
OD: this was to produce a paper and the evidence summarised for inclusion in CGD methodology paper. It was discreet work
MF: yes
OD: the main body of the contract is almost identical to the first contract which you accept was genuine consultancy
EJ: MF said earlier she's not an employment lawyer
OD: I'll save that for closing submissions then.... turn to page 248 (reafs) so you had freedom to do this work.
MF: I was doing research for one module and ha do fit it with the timing of the product
OD: but the hours and days of the week you could choose....

(OD goes through the fee for this work which was to be invoiced.)
OD: you had no right to expenses under this contract
MF: I don't think so
OD: and responsible for your own tax
MF: yes
OD: the fourth contract came about by OB and 646, the 3rd contract had started but not the 4th. MA emails OB (reads out email beginning 'maya is not the right person...') 'any commitment we make to her would be limited in time and scope'
NF: Owen and I had spoke about this...opens father had died and he had time off and this project was late and I had skills in the area and we'd had a discussion but then he'd discussed with Massod and agreed a way forward
OD: this work on commercial confidentiality wasn't your core work on tax
MF: as I've said in was working on tax for a year with CGD. I hadn't said I was a narrow tax specialist.
OD: but you were fundraising for tax work
MF: yes we wanted to raise funds for that project
OD reads another remail from Masood which suggests MF should be expanding her work
MF: yes that was in notes
OD: we can see your involvement was 'limited in scope'
MF: I don't know...the feedback I had is on page 693
OF: I'll take you to that shortly
OD: I'm sticking with the relationship for now...we can see on page 668, (reads email) so no obligation to accept the contract MF: yes although I'd already accepted it. I originally spoke to OB and went through a range of possibilities and this is the email coming back to me.
MF: I thought that would be the end of that
EJ: what do you mean by that
MF: (missed) if I'd not taken the solution offered...and there was no contractual obligation I'd do those projects at that point but there was an expectation I'd be a paid visiting fellow
OD: so you could have just walked away
MF: there was no obligation but an expectation I would
OD: if we look at the wording we see you had input into the rate
MF: I accepted that rate
OD: you could asked for more
MF: I don't know but that's what I was offered and accepted it
OD enquires to usual day rates with MF.
MF: I accepted the offer by Ian
OD: you simply picked the day rate option
MF: I can't remember, we agreed on the primary offer he gave which was a day rate
OD: in respect to the work you had to accept the scope of the work
MF: yes the project wasn't well developed at that point and needed to be worked out
OD: and part of your role was to develop
MF: yes to work out the plan
ID: we see that email from Ian Mitchell and here you suggest bullets and timelines and list the flow of the work
MF: yes
OD: and above that we see Ian sending an instruction to Jaqueline Craig about the contract. That's how it came about
MF: yes the two contracts came to pass as a means to remain as a visiting fellow at CGD
OD: looking at the wording of the identical to the third contract, do you agree
MF: I think so
OD: we can see whats been agreed with Ian is formulated into this contract
OD: and you obligated to and did send invoices and this contract wasn't specific of weekdays and hours
MF: together with Charles we worked that out
ID: and you were in charge of running it
MF: yes but the plan of the project and there being a working group had already been developed by CGD (missed)
MF: yes
OD: page 806, this is an email from you to complainant 3 (will refer to as C3) where you're reporting back on the work (reads email)
OD: with respect to activities in tax you were funding yourself
MF: yes
ID: and there's a clear distinction between the work
MF: from CGDS point if view the two were linked, certainly with my discussion with Owen...I needed funding in the interim and
MF (cont): wasn't exactly subsidising but was allowing me to be a visiting fellow while pursuing other funding sources....(missed)
OD: you saw them as separate
MF: yes
OD: so all the other activities were in the hope of funding
MF: yes in the name CGD
OD: and for you not just CGD
MF: well these were blog posts I'd done and published for CGD
ID: but these other activities weren't obligations
MF: It was constructive ways to gain funding for CGD
OD: but you didn't have to
MF: no it was an email from a colleague asking what I'd been doing
OD: you stated you went to tax conferences before mutually beneficial to raise your profile
OD: you describe it as business development and no instruction to go to the events...
MF: not sure I use the term business wasn't looking for consultancies, it was looking to develop the program
OD: you got paid for that
MF: no I didnt
ID: But the reason you did was to get funding
MF: yes
ID: page 112, this is a list you sent to C3 of things you had done under the title of visiting fello over the last 6 months
OD: we have all the matter you list, now a lot of these are papers. Was there any other paid work?
MF: paper for council in foreign relations was an honorarium and paid for travel. Working with bacs team (?) was paid work.
(OD going through MF's various paid work and MF responding in detail.) EJ: can I just intervene.. are you saying MF that this was part of the project and the fee was for that project
MF: yes it was paid under the contract
(OD asking for more paid work info)
OD thinks its a convenient place to stop considering the time.
EJ tells Maya she mustn't discuss the case and we will return at 2pm.

Join us again at 2pm.
@threadreaderapp please unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Tribunal Tweets at #ForstaterTribunal

Tribunal Tweets at #ForstaterTribunal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets

Mar 11
Good afternoon and welcome back to DAY 5 of #ForstaterTribunal, the case of Forstater Vs CGD.
I'm @Wommando and we're due to start at 2pm where Maya Forstater will continue to give her evidence. Catch up with this morning here:…
Abbrevs used:
Maya Forstater (MF) & counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

Respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Counsel for respondents is Olivia Dobbie (OD)

EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
C3: Complainant 3
Here is Maya Forstater's redacted witness statement:
Read 83 tweets
Mar 11
Good morning and welcome to Day 5 of #ForstaterTribunal, the case of Forstarter vs CGD.

I'm @Wommando and we're expecting to start with Maya Forstater continuing to give her evidence. Catch up here:…
Abbrevs used:

Maya Forstater (MF) & counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

Respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Counsel for respondents is Olivia Dobbie (OD)

EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
C3: Complainant 3
Here is Maya Forstater's redacted witness statement:…

Read 130 tweets
Mar 10
Welcome back to Day 4 of #ForstaterTribunal, the case of Forstater v CGD. We will be resuming with Claimant Maya Forstater giving her evidence at 2pm. Catch up with this morning here:…
Abbrevs used: Maya Forstater (MF) & counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

Respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Respondent counsel is Olivia Dobbie (OD)
EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
C3: Complainant 3
We are waiting to start, meanwhile here is Maya Forstater's redacted witness statement:…
Read 90 tweets
Mar 10
The Interim Cass report is published.…
" Key points – context

The rapid increase in the number of children requiring support and the complex case-mix means that the current clinical model, with a single national provider, is not sustainable in the longer term. >>
"We need to know more about the population being referred and outcomes. There has not been routine and consistent data collection, which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service. >>
Read 16 tweets
Mar 9
OD: really, I do disagree, even in respect to the evidence BC refers to. There's nothing wrong with these individuals saying they were fundraising as there were many others.
BC points EJ to the document
BC: were now on draft 4 as OD as on the hoof redrafted it
EJ: is there any life left in the original application? Is there any use to the original application which seeks to not publish names and emails
OD: I take BC's point about rewording and I apologise there have been various iterations and BC shouldn't suggest that's improper. The new doc doesn't stop people reporting the fundraising activities but will protect their privacy
Read 30 tweets
Mar 9
Good morning & welcome to Day 3 of #ForstaterTribunal, Forstater v CGD. I'm @Wommando, live tweeting for you today.

Day 1 & 2 were reading days & CGD's application for a Restricted Reporting Order: & will resume this morning @10AM
Abbrevs used:

Maya Forstater (MF) & her counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

The respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Counsel for respondents is Olivia Dobbie (OD), Cloisters.

EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
As is the case with live tweeting and the lightening speed we must go, undoubtedly there will be typos, and they will be rectified at the end of the day. We thank you for your support in our efforts of bringing you #OpenJustice. We're here and ready to go at 10am.
Read 86 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!