GMC counsel are Simon Jackson QC (SJ) and his junior Ryan Donohue (RD).
Dr Michael Webberley (MW) is represented by Rosalind Scott Bell (RSB). MW is not attending.
Chair: One of 3 tribunal members acting as Chair
We are back:
Chair is saying there is a later start tomorrow and a great deal of detail in the case and need to set thos out in the determination (D). Hoping for the D tomorrow or Wed latest and first expert to give evidence on friday
RBS: I need to liase with those who instruct me. I think it proper to indicate I oppose any application to proceed in absence
Chair: thank you. I'll come back to that
SJ: it actually bleeds into the point RBS has just raised....Should we just go back into private.
Chair: of course
I am back in the waiting area
We are back.
Chair: both of you made provisional submissions, do you have any updates
SJ: tribunal should proceed to deal with these individually. RSB says in any event we are going to be facing an app after the first one
RSB: I agree with SJ and would invite you to finalise written determination then proof of service and then move on to 'in absense'. I'll need another written D on that.
Chair: we will cross that hurdle when we come to it. We will consider the merits of it and if possible
Chair: we did discuss on provisional basis as to whether matters should be taken sequentially..in light parties agree on that, that's what we will do. It seems to us the decision to adjourn or proceed in absence are separate...
Chair: ..butbthere is an overlap between the two & should give assistance to MW to know our reasons of adjournament. We propose an update after 2pm Tues whether we can hand down written reasons, or if its on Wed, we'll let you know. If no other matters we will adjourn.
We will be reporting the second day of the Employment Appeal Tribunal of Nigel MacLennan vs the British Psychological Society from 10:30 am. MacLennan, elected president in 2020, was expelled from the charity in May 2021.
Details of the case, the various intervenors who have an interest in charities and whistleblowing and full coverage of the first day of the hearing are on our Substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/maclennan-vs…
Abbreviations:
NM/A/C - Nigel MaClennan, appellant or claimant
BPS/R - British Psychological Society, respondent
CM - Chris Milson, barrister for appellant
EDS or DS - Emma Darlow Stearn, barrister for appellant
PG - Paul Gilroy KC, barrister for appellant
The Employment Appeal Tribunal of Nigel MacLennan vs the British Psychological Society on whistle blowing protections will recommence at 2pm. This morning's report is here. archive.ph/j8ttK
CM - Chris Milson barrister for appellant
EDS or DS - Emma Darlow Stearn barrister for appellant
OS - Oliver Spratt, solicitor for appellant
PG - Paul Gilroy KC , barrister for respondent
JL- Jeremy Lewis KC barrister for intervenor Protect @WhistleUK
MS - Mukhtiar Singh barrister for intervenor Protect
NL - Naomi Ling barrister for intervenor Charity Commission @ChtyCommission
We expect to be reporting from 10:30 am on the Employment Appeal Tribunal of Nigel MacLennan vs the British Psychological Society. MacLennan, elected president in 2020, was expelled from the charity in May 2021.
A tribunal ruled last year that MacLennan, an officer and trustee, did not have employment standing and thus the tribunal had no jurisdiction re detriments from making protected disclosures. The case has significance for the charity sector and whistleblowing.
The Charity Commission and Protect @WhistleUK have been granted leave to intervene in the case.
Last part -
BN - is 7b is engaged then 7b should be engaged, in the way it was framed - it was said it was engaged.
BN - [addressing whether the in app communication - hard to prove - as whole thing shut down long ago - (goes to ability to prove what went on)
BN addressing HR commision
- GI doesnt include thoughts & feelings
- chief justice for SA -when you have multiple purposes - you look at text and context on cases
BN - engage with conduct - 'her gender characteristics are why she is being treated like a man'
But RT gender characteristics isn't made out - not made on what's pleaded to. The gender evidence is not enough to locate the discrimination in the case - as put
Part 4 -(Correction on MM, the name was actually Elodie Nadon, apologies)
Counsel coming in.
BN - parties rely on conditions of court (lists paragraphs)
BN - speaks of the content of a treaty obligation what it depends on - reads the interpretative principles -
- given weight - footnote says taken as a whole - the int law,... BN says court only takes on recommendations
...but can't be elevated to ignoring the intent of the instrument/treaty.
BN - footnote 7 refers to (gives a court event /occasion/judgement) para 66 - proposition which footnote supports - the point these general commentaries used in a broader context & application to indi facts
Part 3
BN - Have to engage with case as pleaded.
Honor made remarks - there is a division tween direct and indirect discrimination (dis')
Only one way to pursue this case is it has to be direct - indirect in discrimination -
J says planning direct and indirect discrimination..
J reiterates PLAINLY dir and indir discrimination.
J asking if only handling direct - not a way to procede
BN and arguing -BN arguing about a comparative class -
J says should address both,
BN says will do so - but makes the point - that the case has changed - as imprudent
BN - what is relevant is the facts
Court requires to define GI which Tickles lawyers haven't done. Bn going to Gender identity def.
J - the adopted the commissioner's definition
BN - objects Tickles's lawyers (RT'sL)
BN - reads out the GI def