Thread by @tribunaltweets

Second afternoon session RM v WCC and SWE

NC Short piece on retrieval of in house legal costs in Richardson, saying the definition re rule 38 on fees etc. Not proscriptive and a digest. [reads]

NC That doesn't take matters forward because the costs of in house lawyer are recoverable but there still have to be costs of proceedings and for that, if u look at the rules themselves [ finding docs] Rule 74.1 [describes costs...] Rule 75 [reading out] It's clear these rules

NC are about costs of proceedings. Power to award costs is [? very complicated]. No reason to think it extends to costs... The C was dealing with illegal acts related to but separate to proceedings. Sunnova in authorities bundle

NC Facts here and relevant passage in para 19, re limit on costs [reads very fast]. Nothing limits costs at partic stages aor costs occured aftre they'd begun. But must be costs related to the proceedings, in way of drafting or drafting latter or advice. Idea the C could get as

NC part of costs the proceedings she's incurred in separate matters seems extraordinary. How cld the trib do this re fitness to practice which she can only claim as damages. If I'm wrong I'd wish to fall back on non tribunal costs being added to her claim as costs

NC The Rs cant have their cake and eat it. It wont matter if she recovers as damages or costs - we'll look at this tmrw.. SCs whole argument rests on plank that C cld recover costs not related to these proceddings as costs of these proceedings but I suggest SCs defence crumbles

NC In para 44, seems to be doc of precedent being reimagined. These are expenses due to the Rs discrimination so the C shld be reimbursed and compensated for her loss according to the torts. It cant be done irt her ET costs acc to the rules

NC If it hasnt been doen in the past, it shld be done in the future. There's no argument against it. Re the crowdfunder and it appearing she isnt going to suffer loss, there is a long way to go with the crowdfunder and there being a surplus

J Asking the costs and any outstanding legal costs
NC Yes, mine
J Assuming costs aren't demarcated between advisory and here. Some of financial loss..
NC They makes no odds. C has been insured by a willing crowd. An insurer wld hesitate to fund an 8 day ET that may be only

NC for injuries to feelings. It's irrelevant.
There's no risk she'll lose her job now but at the time she feared she wld as facing a gross misconduct trial
J Asking when launched
SC Feb 2022
NC So given a final warning for 2 yrs and looks like wanted to dismiss but pulled back

NC So that's everything specific on SCs written submission. For most part can leave e'thing else to what I've said in writing. It's become clear that RM isnt an activist and didnt choose this. She liked and shared private posts in front of 40-50 private friends

NC She was put thru 2 yrs of hell. A SW on less than 50k. CC is CEO of a major regulator oversseing over 120K ppl on a salary of £165. This org does have discrim views and SWE holds discrim views and committed serious acts of high handed oppressive discrimination

NC She has been harassed by SWE. It's not put anyone in discipl for this or put in place any training or taken any active steps to show it's learned anything from this

NC Mr Conway suggests SWE dont take the trib judgement seriously. It's vital the trib does make an order for damages as nothing less will attract their attention to the gravity of the sit and to put house in order

NC That concludes for me
J There's a suggestion that the principles remain the same but some PCs may be more connected to a persons self identification than others. I raise that as u say the C isnt an activist. How central is it re injury to feelings.
NC I'm saying analagous.

NC This partic discrim is a violation of her article 9 & 10 rights as well as discrim on her beliefs

J what do we anticipate for duration tmrw?
SC I'll be about an hour
J We might schedule another day for deliberation.
J We'll resume at 10am tomorrow.

@threadreaderapp unroll