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.
Good afternoon. This is the final session of Toshack vs GeoAmey. We expect to resume at 3pm. For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers continues on
@tribunaltweets
Mr Toshack (DT) asserts that he was dismissed because of his gender critical beliefs. His appeal against his dismissal was subsequently upheld. He is claiming harassment, discrimination and indirect discrimination on the grounds of his gender critical beliefs.
Good morning, this is the final hearing day of Toshack vs GeoAmey. For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers continues on @tribunaltweets
We expect to continue at 10 am with a final witness. The tribunal is expected to adjourn from approximately 11:30 then return to public session at 2:30 pm for any oral submissions.
Our previous coverage and background on the case can be found here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/toshack-vs-g…
We are a volunteer collective of citizen journalists, please consider following here and on @tribunaltweets and subscribing to our Substack to support our work.
IO: A diff ET may have made a different decision doesnt mean this ET was wrong
LW: Unless they erred in law.
IO: If the parties had put an approach as to how provisions should be interpreted you cant go back on that
LN: I do follow but its really about the language of causation and its not obvious to me we are helped on that
IO: It would be wrong to suggest every conceivable argument was put by each side
LB: It was a 4 week trial. We are conscious we are focussing on a v small part of the case. Thats not itself an answer
IO: No but it does provide some explanation as to the paucity of detail in the
Good morning. The appeal of Allison Bailey v Stonewall re-starts this morning at 10.30am. The proceedings will also be live-streamed here: youtube.com/@RoyalCourtsof…
Allison Bailey’s skeleton argument: allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/upl…
Stonewall’s skeleton argument will be added to our substack should it become publicly available.
Abbreviations for today's hearing:
AB - Allison Bailey, the appellant is also referred to as ‘C’ for claimant
SW - Stonewall Equality Ltd, the first respondent, also referred to as ‘Stonewall’
IO Just in relation to the question asked about para 369 it is my submission is that the ET findings of fact for better or worse what is recorded there is what they heard and accepted and drew from it.
But there is nothing in decision that precedes or follows that wasn't open for them to make.
Para 370 374 some factors the ET took into consideration in reaching conclusions. My submission in that these matters were ET were entitled to have a view on.
BCRight and common ground that the term cause doesn't imply a conscious motive on the part of person A and that must be right or it would be inconsistent with emp law.
It is necessary to analyse the scope of obligation to find what the defend ought to be held for
the eat is wron
in my submission in supplying the test because as I have indicated the duty bearers need to know what it is they are and aren't allowed to do