Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning this Tribunal Tweets, tweeting the case of Allison Bailey vs Stonewall & Garden Court Chambers at the Employment Tribunal.

We expect proceedings to begin at 10.00 am.

Abbreviations:
AB: Allison Bailey, claimant

BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB

SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)

IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW

RW = Robin White assisting IO

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)

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

AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, barrister for GC (respondents 2 & 3)

JR = Jane Russell assisting AH

EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case

Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

STAG = Stonewall Trans Advisory Group

RK = Reg Kheraj and ZA = Zainab Al-Farabi, sequentially SW's Client Account Managers for GC

AD = Alex Drummond a member of STAG

KM = Kirrin Medcalf, SW Head Of Trans Inclusion

SK = Shaan Knan of LGBT Consortium, a member of STAG

MB = Michelle Brewer, a Member of GC (since left)

SL = Stephen Lue, a junior Member of GC

MHL = Mia Hakl-Law, Director of Human Resources and Operations at GC

The claimant Allison Bailey (AB) will be continuing her evidence. We expect Andrew Hochhauser (AH) to be questioning her.
The court is now beginning.
EJ: Says good morning and introduces the case.

IO: we would like to change tomorrow's witnesses due to their availability.
EJ: Is this OK?
BC: With reluctance it's OK. Not ideal. Time estimates for those witnesses remains the same (witnesses are ZA and KM)

EJ: AH what time do you need with ZA and KM
AH: ZA 15 mins. JR will deal with KM
JR: half an hour
EJ: BC will need time to talk to AB before those witnesses are questioned
AH: re two other witnesses BC will already have his questioning sorted but I don't object to more time

being given to consider the answers given
EJ: How about IO?
[silence]
EJ: is IO having difficulty with technical equipment? Could someone call her?
AH: we've contacted her
EJ: she may be relogging in. A reminder we are waiting for a list of GC members
AH: you should have this

EJ: We don't
AH: we will get that to you
EJ: Can the witnesses have some training on the equipment before they appear?
EJ: IO is back. I can't hear you. You're not muted. Still can't hear you
AH: IO is happy that we proceed

EJ: we will resume cross-examination of AB
AH: Good morning AB.
AB: good morning
AH: Docs were ordered by tribunal last year over a year after you started tribunal proceedings. They were given under your instructions.
AB: yes

First detriment: you are asking for a 6 figure sum.
AB: yes
AH: the withholding of work by respondents causing AB financial loss. You name people you accuse of this. You name Christina [?].
AB: yes
AH: Can you read para 4?
AB: I've read it
AH: the words you use: it is to be

inferred that the head clerk subjected you to the detriment you mention.
AB: yes
AH: when you refer to other members of chambers. that comes to 15 in number. Is that right?
AB: I agree we tried to narrow it down to people who could have influenced the clerk

AH: Mr Cook acted under the influence of these people?
AB: yes. not all of them
AH: so not all of them, could be one?
AB: i was asked to limit the number to all of the people who could have influenced. Not all of them will have
AH: email of 14 dec 2018 where you responded to

SL's email?
AB: Correct
AH: Hostility was shared by senior members of chambers.
AB: correct
AH: you refer to other members of chambers but then say it was widely shared by senior members. I hostility just from seniot members?
AB: no not just them. Other staff members Mr Neil

responded to email. Made him feel unsafe and shouldn't have been sent. The email I sent was sent to everyone. Senior members had an overwhelming neg view. Both senior and junior and all staff were copied into SL's email and my response email.

[apologies for delay - had to re-log in to tribunal]

AB: our clerking is vulnerable to pressure. Don't know how SL's email affected clerks attitude to me.
AH: That isn't what is said at para 4?
AB: I disagree
AH: You understand the meaning of words?
AB: yes. I understand in legal context but am not expert employment lawyer

[Technical issues again. Having to rejoin]

AH hem work. They are very vulnerable.

AH Miss Bailey Worry not. For I am going to look at this very carefully.

You are attributing to Cristian Elefteriou - she concsiously withheld instructions from you

AB Above Colin, sits the heads of chambers. I don't say CE acted on her own, or even wanted to.

AH - you are asked who is the individual individauls who victimised you
It is a serious allegation. She was a young woman setting out on her career.
You have branded her as someone who victimised her and for good measure amended your claim to add her as a direct discrimination.

AB I was compelled to. My diary was overwhelmingly clerked by Luke and CE. I say she was acting on the direction of CC. Directions to withhold work, give me work that was significantly below [my experience]

[missed]
AH questions on timeline
It is quite interesting that you rely on activity in Feb based on an email in December.
AB the strength of hostility from senior members of the crim team.I knew something had gone terribly wrong on how I was being clerked from 2109.

AH read [too fast] about how junior clerks were too inexperienced to properly clerk the claimant.
I did a word search for how many reference to CE. would you be surprised that there was one reference.
AB No.

AH - you don't set out how she failed you.
AB Page number pls
AH what you say is b/w 25/11 2019 23/1 2020 "I was led by QC in a 38 day murder trial. In my diary in 2019. Put into diary by CE. That case was one of the biggest cases you go that year.

AB classic returned case - Jo was tied up I was instructed very late.
AH It wasn't witheld for you. It went to you. One of the best cases you got that year.

AB Yes it was.

AH - the "DC" case -
EJ - I missed where we are.
AH - GC witness bundle [gives reference]

AH - you attribute that case to CE as the person who clerked it.
AB - no I don't. She would not have taken the decision to give me that case. Someone senior would have said Jo not avilable, let's give it to AB as she's avilable.

AH - go back to yr witness statement - whch uses precisely those words. Only reference to CE. It's not sending you off to some basic case in Oxford way below yr call.

AB I've seen how the clerks work. Everything flows through Colin down.

AH It was a senior decision to give you a major case.
AB - it was given at short notice. Pressures of Old Bailey murder case late.
[noise interuption]

AH refers to the case reference numbers.
page 265 - we will see the first entry is the same case.
AB - I've got a paragraph where DC isn't mentioned.
EJ - first case in 2020

AH You started the trial on 25 Nov 2019. It didn't finish until 23 Jan 202o. So all the income is not recognised in 2019. For publicly funded cases, you don't bill until the case completes.

AB/AH agree cash flow problems.

AH - turns to supplementary witness statement

AH - look at para 14 - says during 2019 I was offered and accepted the following [missed]
you say none

[Back to main bundle 1158]

AH Now this is CE - scroll up to 1156, on very day you say conspiracy to withold work she is writing re a privately paid enquiry in realtion to a bail application.
The price is £350 not £400.
You say I'll pass but thank you for think of me.

AH On the day which you say this conspiracy started, CE is offering a case. and she offered you yr biggest case that yr. And from that you are [saying] she discrimnated against you.

AH Very junior clerk making her way in the clerks room soI want to give you the opportunity to withdraw that allegation>

AB No. I have made it very clear. CE was junior and had no other option but to [do what she was instructed],

AH - no evidence that she was instructed.

EJ - 5 minute break.

[Resuming]
AH: Turning to Colm Cook. You out him centre stage
AB: yes
AH: in 2019 my work dropped off a cliff, correct
AB: yes
AH: we will look at your witness statement
AH: you tell us he is 1st black head clerk Been there 30 years. Good Man
AB: yes
AH: highly respected?
AB: yes

AH: head clerk since you were there and good relationship?
AB: yes
AH: he says on his recommendation you represented one of his family members
AB: that's right
AH: back to your witness statement
BC: come ref to Mr Menon's wit statement but we agree this would be redacted. Can we

provide references to that?
AH: we can try
BC: please put extractions from statement into chat room
AH: I will read out the paragraphs
EJ: we ought to be looking at his exhibit
AH: I will refer to Mr Menon's exhibit
EJ: someone will need to cut and paste into chat room

EJ: you need to read out the sections you will be referring to
AH: yes. [reads out] I've always had high regard for AB. She is a quality brief and she is trusted. We get on really well. I've spoken to AB family member and it's important that she have faith in me. It is a surprise

to hear her accusations.
AB: i agree except in 2015 I did raise with him real disappointment with my clerking. He is difficult position - he needs to keep power players happy and distributing work. But i know the politics in chambers that he has to navigate

AH: look at para 225B. You refer to colin cook there. That's a 16 day GBH trial
AB: yes
AH: no complaint there about him?
AB not yes or no question
AH: it is. You don't make a complaint about Colin cook.
AB: solicitor asked specifically for me. Colin didn't brief me about this.

AB: solicitor called Colin Cook and asked for me.
AH: so your ref to him is with regard to quality of work he gave you? Could you turn to next ref to him?
AB: yes
AH: para 235 this is about practice review
AB: i had contacted charlie tennant and colin cook
AH: I will get to that

AH: he attended the review?
AB: it never happened. Practice reviews had fallen by the wayside - I hadn't had a review for years. I was concerned to requested a review. But it never actually happened. Can't remember why
AH: you don't mention it didn't happen. I will go through

email exchange. Para 238. CC spoke to you about work twice in 2019[?].
AB: yes
AH: go to main bundle. No complaint that CC was not spending enough time with you.
AB: no
AH: CC spends most time with silks?
AB: and with selected senior juniors
AH: you don't refer to failure

of him to spend enough time with you?
AB: No
AH: back to wit state para 245. He says the 4th sept 2019 the bail application was for very junior work. Other barrister couldn't do it. CC wanted you to do a prelim application so solicitor could see what new barrister was like

AB: CC is not above putting a spin on applications
AH: t's unreasonable to ask new barrister to do application of that kind
AB: I wasn't told. I was asked to to bail application. I pushed back
AH: no suggestion that CC was behaving in the way you desribe
AB: there is an inference

I don't say any of the clerks were the organising minds behind my clerking. They were under influence of people who pay their wages.
AH: back to bundle p43. What CC says is the crime clerks operate as a team. Do you accept?
AB: No when it comes to distribution of cases

decision has to be made by head clerk. Heads liaise with barristers, soliciters but allocation of senior work instructions come from CC.
AH: There is no clerk designation to look after each member?
AB: no. there is a practice where I am almost always contacted by Charlie Tennant

AH: Go to CC's statement para 15. Luke and Christine replaced Jo and Chloe when they left. Luke joined in August 2019. Far from having no criminal experience, he actually did
AB: I accept that but didn't know that then. He was junior to charlie tennant.
AH: P48 para 19

AH: Reads: There was never a time when AB was clerked only by Luke and Chloe. She continued to be clerked by same team.
AB: in practice we've known that clerking is unequal. This predates all of this
AH: please listen to my question. I'm asking you is that when you ook at what

he says [missed next bit]
AH: the quality of your clerking changed not at all
AB: I dont agree
AH: Back to CC's statement. He talks about email exchange. para 40 he says that he has seen SL's email and also see emails in response inc by yourself. CC did not recall thinking

anything about those emails. GC was accredited as SW champion but it didn't affect my [CC's] work. You can't dispute this
AB: no
AH: Go to p55 para 47 of CC's statement. Reads: I'm told we were told to restructure for AB and I'm told that we did so out of hostility because of her

email. I state categorically it is untrue and at no point was I instructed to restructure her arrangements to reduce her income. I can confirm I never had a conversation about ABs belief. Alex Sharpe is unknown to me. The others I know. The allegation is simply untrue.
AH: you

aren't in a position to dispute this
AB: I draw reasonable inferrences because CC was in contact with some of these people after my first protected act
AH: Look at p95 of your wit state. Para 306. You note that it begins from Oct 2019 and talks about LGB Alliance. Para 307 refers

to that date. You said although I worked intensely on LGBA steering group I was in work almost all of 2019 in complex cases
AB: yes
AH: you flat out with work & you were put on huge trial that lasted into jan following year.
AB: autumn 2019 and early 2019 was filled with 2

murder brief and serious cases. No clerking was involved
AH: so your work didn't fall off a cliff
AB: I was bringing in my own cases off my own bat
AH: your work didn't fall off a cliff
AB: correct
AH: back to CC statement. I suggest there is no evidence that you can point to in

this statement. There was no withholding of work to AB on basis of the email exchange or bc of her belief. We tried hard to keep her in work. There is nothing in your wit state that shows a specific occasion where clerks hold back work from you
AB: I was offered inferior brief

after inferior brief. This is how you break a lawyer down. I got the message was spirit crushing - that I wasn't welcome in GC unless I brought my own work in
AH: that's not what you put, is it?
AB: I'm expanding on what I have pleaded. I see this as consistent

AH: The murder brief doesn't show this does it?
AB: chambers wanted a junior to help out. They didn't want to say to solicitor that they couldn't help them. I was helping them
AB: I know that the clerks have hard jobs
AH: they got you one of your highest earning briefs ona murder

case
AH: are you saying on oath that this shows you having your spirit crushed
AB: that's not what I'm saying. They were both cases where I GC were in need of me and I helped them
EJ: taking break until 12.07

[We're back]
AH: Turning to Luke Harvey. Main bundle. In para 3 a you say LH had moved from civil clerking to crime
AB: it was when I first met him because I had booked some leave and had elective surgery
AH: we'll return to that. You were absent
AB: I booked time off

AH: If you have long time off it's difficult to get work when you get back
AB: i accept that if i had worked in Nov and Dec 2018 I would have expected to get more work
AH: you wouldn't have income while you were off. The murder trial at end of year no money or billing took place

for that.
AB: no billing until following year
AH: We agree no income in 2019 for work in the murder trial and no billing?
AB: correct
AH: back to LH he joined in 2018. He wasn't employed bc of your email
AB: I don't say this
AH: he came from same place as Charlie Tennant?

AB: I didn't say that
AH: they are experienced clerks?
AB: I accept that
AH: only 4 refs to LH in your wit state
AB: I don't accept that word searching name is good way to look
AH: Not asking for opinion I'm asking you questions
AH: In your wit state p35 para 112 you say

'my clerking arrangements changed and LH was effectively clerking me at the time'. Are you aware that this stopped when he became part of the team?
Look at main bundle 1022. Do you suggest that his desire to withdraw work is bc he clerked for TRWG?

AB: he could've be influenced by working with that group if he heard me described as a transphobe
AH: Really?
AB: Being called transphobe is like being called a racist
AH: did it influence his behaviour
AB: it could have, yes
AH: You say LH became main clerk from jan 2019 altho

not formally announced. You say he had no criminal clerking
AB: I accept that he did have criminal clerking - I didn't realise
AH: for several years. You say he was junior to charlie so you were being demoted. As you saying on oath that Charlie was replaced by Luke?
AB: New work

was coming from LH. Charlie contacted me once.
AH: on oath do you say LH replace CT as your clerk
AB: I am but I DID have some contact with CT
AH: Para 224 - you make same point. Luke was same clerk for TRWG and would have heard the rebuke of me.
AB: yes

AH: para 236 you refer to case LH offered you. You take the view that this was beneath you
AB: not beneath me but working towards being appointed to QC. It's the sort of case given to new or very junior barrister. Didn't want to take case and then be unable to take a longer case.

One of first cases from him was only a 3 day case
AH: you'd have from £1,500 from it
AB: yes but would have had costs
AH: so happy to turn down £1500?
AB: not happy. wanted to look at longer cases. My clerking materially changed and this is example of that

AH: i will go through sort of work you were doing. Back to main bundle p170. Back to pleadings. Allegation of withholding of instructions. This is not eg of withholding
AB: blockbooking is blocked out with a small case in the middle of your diary so I would have been unable to

take longer case. It would have withheld lucritive cases from me. This is documented for women from prior to this.
AH: It's not withholding work
AB: it is
AH: LH says 'we were clerking 70 barristers'. His job was diary clerk. 'We worked as a team and didn't have individual

barristers' When barrister spoke to us we would give list of barristers' availability without having to check with senior people. Do you dispute this?
AB: long accepted that clerking isn't just giving list of barristers names. REality is solicitors call up and clerk will

give certain barristers name.
AH: I will show what happened. This is where the real money is in this claim so I will spend time on this. You have raised £500k to crowdfund this
AB: it's not about the money
AH: but you are asking for a six-figure some
AB: I am. I'm not doing

this for money. You have to quantify the losses. It's difficult to quantify bc we are paid so haphazardly
EJ: you're not bringing claim for money but for principle but money is involved
AH: LH says it's alledged that we acted together to restructure work for AB to reduce her

income. 'I can confirm this is untrue. I have not been involved in this'
AB: He may not have realised what he was being asked to do. If he was told to assign me 3 day trial, that is what he would do.
AH: main bundle. You're not saying that he was doing this not knowing.

you accuse him of doing this
AB: the clerks would know I had fallen out of favour with senior members of chambers who pay their wages.
AH: you attribute those hostile views to Mr Harvey and say this is why he treats you like this
AB: it's under the influence of

AH: are you abandoning the case?
AB: I'm not
AH: if you're advancing a conspiracy theory then this should be put to them
AB: I trust BC
AH: You focus the case on hidden conspiracy

AB: There were influences. It happened
AH: LH knows about the hostility to you. That's what you're saying
AB: I say CC was in this situation was under the influence and was vulnerable, as were lower clerk, for his income.
AH: Given the paucity of evidence, I invite you to

abandon case against him. Will you?
AB: No
AH: turning to Charlie Tennant. No victimisation case made against him?
AB: correct
AH: I give you opportunity to abandon case against CT AB: Thank you but no
AH: at beginning of conspiracy - p1251

AH: email from CT from 5 Feb. He talks to Laura Stockdale at Hickman and Rose[?]. He puts forward people for a case inc you. You are put forward for potential case by him
AB: correct
AH: he did that before and he's doing it for you now?
AB: I don't agree. This would have

been not the way for barristers to get case. He's not acting as my clerk
AB: he's acting as my clerk by putting my name on a lis
AH: we see that 11 Feb CT sees Snaresbrook listed a trial and barrister wasn't available to do it. People's return is bread and butter for barristers

AB: Returns become bread and butter when you are junior. My diary should have had cases not returns
AH: Sometimes cases have to filled in by other people
AB: they are clerked depending on seniority in chambers
AH: p1268. CT says he has looked through diary and mentions your name

AB: he does
AH: is he your clerk there?
AB: I don't get work from my name being on a list. I don't consider this effective clerking
AH: go to your wit state. P71. You said does not stand scrutiny. You had seen all disclosure - this wasn't stuff you weren't aware of but you said

replacement of charlie with luke was a demotion. Do you accept that Charlie was not replaced as your clerk
AB: no
AH: p1294. Your email 18 april to charlie tennant- you say I will be away from 19 Feb - 18 Feb (corrected to 18 Mar on other email). There is nothing else in my diary

I look forward to meeting you at practice review. You are telling them that you are going away for a month.
AB: I'm booking diary out to avoid blockbooking
AH: I cant see this is your wit state
AB: i'm not allowed bookmarks so I can't point you to it
AH: we are 18 days into

conspirary. You say you emailed CT and copied CC. No suggestion in your wit statement that you complained. Can you show me where you did
AB: at para 231 of my wit stat Matt O'Dowd had emailed me with a 3-day trial which was concerning. Michael is junior member so must have been

instructed.
AH: he was part of the conspiracy?
AB: you're putting it into dramatic terms but yes that 3 day trial should be clerked to someone of my seniority. I say I was concerned about future
AH: you say you were worried about being block booked by small cases
AB: but that is

my future.
AH: Prior to this doc you haven't complained.
AB: can we look at p625[?] of the bundle?
AH: of course. From Matt O'Dowd - asking if you interested in 3 day trial
AB: I emailed Harvey asking what sort of work I should clerked for. I was raising in feb by email or phone

that I was surprised to be offered the type of work which should have been for junior barrister
AH: exchange betw you and Colin. Isleworth case offered. You said thanks Colin, I'll take it
AB: the solicitor specifically asked for me
AH: you are making up evidence that isn't in

here. You've said that you had earlier emailed clerks where you complained. There is nothing that refers to earlier email complaining.
AB: I can't see it in wit state now. But it is in the bundle.
EJ: can Mr Cooper go through this with you?
AB: yes

EJ: This is a good time to break
Back at 2pm