This is @Justabaker17, live tweeting this afternoon from the Maya Forstater Tribunal. After lunch, testimony will continue from Luke Eastman. Here is a link to his witness statements.
Abbreviations used
BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for the claimant,
MF = Maya Forstater, claimant
AP = Anya Palmer, assisting BC
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for respondents
EJ = Employment judge, leading the panel
Panel = any of the 3 panel members.
Expecting to resume at 2 pm.
CGDE (CGD Europe) – Respondent 1
CGD = Centre for Global Development – Respondent 2
MA = Masood Ahmed, President of CGD and Chair of the Board of CGDE – Respondent 3
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Bird vs the Liberal Democrats will continue this morning, scheduled for a 10:30 am start. Reading over yesterday's coverage, it provides an accurate account of proceedings. Additional background may be a useful aid to understanding.
Ms Bird claimed that the Liberal Democrats (both of the United Kingdom and of England) had discriminated against for her gender critical beliefs, including removing her as a Parliamentary candidate.
The Liberal Democrats admitted Ms Bird’s claims just before the trial was due to begin in July 2024. The explanation from LDs was that this was to save time and costs. A subsequent hearing for damages and costs was scheduled for 16 & 17 December 2024.
Abbreviations
NB/C - Natalie Bird, claimant
LD/R - Lib Dems, respondent
EW - Emma Walker, barrister for claimant
EH - Elliot Hammer, solicitor for claimant
NR - Nathan Roberts, Matrix Chambers for the respondent
NR - Point 1, C has not provided evidence with regard to parliamentary career and feelings. 2. The case is prone to exaggeration. 3. The evidence misfires in that it is not relevant or hasn't addressed the detriments. The award should be no more than £10k.
EW - now explaining the number of elected members of the LD federal board, there were 15. But it's unclear that there were 3 elected positions in 2024.
J - there are 3 elected positions of the fed board, many members are ex officio, she is claiming for hurt feelings for not
being allowed to stand for election for the federal board in 2021.
EW - there were 15 elected positions in 2021, not 3.
J - but you're not calling your witness to clarify.
NR - I'm surprised that MLF is making submissions on this. Why are they claiming for £90k not £20
We are hoping to report today from the County Court London (at the Royal Courts of Justice) on the costs hearing for Natalie Bird vs the Liberal Democrat Party and others.
The Liberal Democrats admitted to discriminating against Bird, shortly before court proceedings were scheduled to begin in July 2024. Our coverage on the case is here: open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltw…
A two day hearing in front of Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon is scheduled to consider a cost award for the claimant.
Costs hearings can be heavy on legal argument and may be difficult to follow. We will do our best.
This is part 2 of the afternoon session at the Court of Appeal "Re Q", an application by a parent to prevent a minor child accessing a non-NHS 'gender' clinic before the age of 18. Part 1 is here:
RB: few other points to flag up - [citation - "revisit of Gillick"] - important to bear in mind Q has right to medical confidentiality, and Q was v clear wd have strong objections to appellant seeing results of assessments etc
RB: so court would have to decide things like what information court should share with A - Q would have strong objections.
Good afternoon, welcome back to the Court of Appeal. We will start again at 2pm.
Mrs A seeks to prevent her child from obtaining cross sex hormones via a private prescription.
A - Mrs A
AB - Mrs A's Barrister
R - respondent
RB - respondents Barrister
F - Father
Q - the child
AB - notes references on medical capacity act and what sections of rules are being used. Identifying before you Mundy lines argument.
*speaker issues in court*
AB - if there remains concerns about capacity the way forward is the same as when someone lacks capacity.
AB where finely balanced, base it on assessment, the parents concerned and the provider (conflict here as private provider). Then a referral would be to the court of protection. And the person would have legal representation. Even when all parties agree on way forward.