Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning this is Jenny Smith @GoodyActually tweeting the case of Allison Bailey vs Stonewall & Garden Court Chambers at the Employment Tribunal.

@GoodyActually We expect proceedings to begin at 10.00 am.

We shall need formally to request permission to live-tweet from the Court once the hearing begins.

@GoodyActually Today's hearing is expected to be short - an "administrative" session only, with the rest of today and the whole of tomorrow reserved as reading time for the Court.

Witness evidence will begin on Wednesday 27th with Allison Bailey as the first witness.

@GoodyActually Abbreviations:

AB: Allison Bailey, claimant
BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB

@GoodyActually SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)
IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW
RW = Robin White assisting IO

@GoodyActually GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2)
RM= Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GCC except AB)

@GoodyActually Respondents 2 & 3 are in practice indistinguishable; Garden Court Chambers are respondents both corporately and as the set of individuals making up the Chambers.

@GoodyActually EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case
Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

@GoodyActually We shall begin live-tweeting as soon as the Court gives us permission to do so.

Two more abbreviations:

AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, barrister for Garden Court Chambers
JR = Jane Russell assisting AH

The session has begun and we are waiting for permission to live-tweet

We have permission, on the basis that tweeting is the equivalent of reporting not recording.

The court is dealing with administrative matters this morning, for example ensuring that all parties have identical document bundles.

EJ: we typically warn witnesses not to discuss while on stand: this may need to include social media interaction

BC: will wish to introduce an extra document re SW interaction with people that disagree.

BC: draw attention of EJ to intro notes on timetable

AH: witness timetable - lots of evidence - much of it narrative in AB witness statement, I shall limit my Qs to direct experience sections only

AH: draw EJ attention to much overlap between parties in opening submissions, court please use as starting point

BC: we disclosed a document - see claimant witness statement - material which we say shows pattern of SW employees threatening women who make public statements disagreeing with them

BC: goes to show SW general modus operandi - we submit this is relevant. Context is that an individual in SW with a role relevant to these proceedings liasing between SW trans group and employers

BC: this person had tweeted re Irish therapists group dealing with children - SW individual effectively inciting attacks on those women - minutes of meeting w/ Nancy Kelley - we submit this document relevant and should be admitted

IO: BC did not show you the *issues in this case* this is relevant to - we say it is not relevant. You see in claimant statement - she says she became aware in 2022 so much later than matters of this case

IO: does not concern any SW employee who is a witness here. BC is wrong to say this is relevant to *this* case. And BC's description of what happened just given is not what witness statement of AB says

IO: AB statement just says "a meeting took place". Nobody is going to give evidence about the meeting. Nobody denies meeting happened but not relevant to this case. Fishing expedition by AB and her team. We resist disclosure.

IO: This will not add to case in any way, we resist application

AH: I endorse what IO has said. Net cast too wide. Case is simple at base. Court must focus on agreed issues list. Resist application.

BC: 16,17,18 in list of agreed issues - you can see are re inducing breach of equality act 2010 - my opening submission makes argument re this where SW is concerned - Court needs to understand if SW had "relevant motivation"

BC: material that helps court see how SW approaches these issues, a pattern of threatening women they disagree with, document is relevant. Fact that no witness evidence on it not important.

BC: should add that if doc admitted we will as a result need further disclosure from SW

EJ: minutes agreed, or by therapists?
BC: believe latter
EJ: will reserve judgment on this application, deal on Wednesday morning

EJ: Re use of language. Panel have read ch12 of Equal Treatment Bench book

BC: participants all agree we should use any/everyone's preferred pronouns etc.

BC: applies to AB too - objects to being called "cis" or "cisgendered"

EJ: what if we need to make a distinction between trans or not? Just woman?

BC: [checks with AB} yes

BC: Given nature of case it must be OK for AB when talking about her beliefs to use language which accords with her beliefs

BC: this will include needing on occasion to refer to transwomen as "male" or "men", including when speaking of individuals.

EJ: invites comments from other barristers

IO: it's agreed re dealing with witnesses etc
EJ: indeed and if we mistake we apologise and move on
IO: Re AB being able to express her own beliefs as she wishes. But witnesses must also be able to

AH: nothing to add

EJ: when people are giving evidence about beliefs, they must be able to express them, and this is core to case. But I request care and constraint and recognition of strong differences.

EJ: would ask witnesses not to describe AB as "cis" but they must be allowed to use the word in general
BC: exactly
EJ: exclusion only applies to AB.

IO: I would not expect to use that terminology of her

EJ: Good, all clear. Any other language points?

{none raised}

EJ: Agree with AH that questioning does not have to deal with whole statements, only salient points.

AH: notes that court will not sit 6th May - we did have witnesses planned that day - may have to re-jig witness list bcs of availablity - will advise.

AH: timetable has reserved day before closing submissions - please maintain this

AH: some timetabling issues may come up in the last week - we have all cooperated well on timetabling to date - hope to continue to.

EJ: stress we v much hope to keep the 5 days reserved at end for deliberation at the end

IO: requests that chat box is kept for court business and is not a general chat function, could EJ pls remind of this when each session starts
EJ: agrees

AH: We have 3 bundles - can I check court also does
EJ: yes

AH: we have had a controversy re a couple of witnesses, I have included proposal to resolve in opening submission

AH: we have "blown up" some docs that are hard to read, we have emailed [interruption while EJ mutes background noise]

EJ: please email to clerk

AH: it's been agreed that GC witnesses will give evidence from chambers buildings - one witness will in fact be in Cardiff
EJ: OK

AH: we may need to alter one further timing bcs witness professional commitmentss

EJ: OK tell us Wednesday

BC: much pressure on Clerk this morning bcs many people logging in. We got round by having barristers introduce main parties to him and assuming all others "public gallery"
EJ: Agreed, good method

IO: check that court has "cast list"
EJ: yes, thank you, helpful

EJ: Adjourn to 10:00 Wednesday morning

@threadreaderapp please unroll