Thread by @tribunaltweets

We are hoping to report today from the County Court London (at the Royal Courts of Justice) on the costs hearing for Natalie Bird vs the Liberal Democrat Party and others.

The Liberal Democrats admitted to discriminating against Bird, shortly before court proceedings were scheduled to begin in July 2024. Our coverage on the case is here: open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltw…

A two day hearing in front of Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon is scheduled to consider a cost award for the claimant.
Costs hearings can be heavy on legal argument and may be difficult to follow. We will do our best.

Natalie Bird says she was suspended from the party after being “harrassed” and “smeared” by activists because she fought for women’s rights and expressed her opinion that it is not possible for a person to change sex. Including wearing an 'adult human female' t-shirt.

Abbreviations we expect to use today.
NB/C - Natalie Bird, claimant
LD/R - Lib Dems, respondent
W - Walker, barrister for claimant
EH - Elliot Hammer, solicitor for claimant
NR - Nathan Roberts, Matrix Chambers for the respondent
NA - Nigel Adams, solicitor for the respondent

J - Judge, Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon
GC - gender critical or sex realist beliefs

We begin.
The judge has entered.
W - should we be robed
J - I don't required it
W - q re a witness statement from a lib dem witness, I was expecting the witness to appear, apparently not appearing, I need to query points in the witness statement.

J - we don't need witness evidence to deal with outcome of elections, publicly known matters
W - not publicly know matters, behind the scenes machinations of the lib dems, need to challenge
J - he says very little, he sets out facts, very little opinion, says little on the

matter. Your problem is that you have not pleaded any of this. You pleaded 'injury to feelings' you did not plead 'failure to be elected'. However, I do agree that if a witness statement is submitted, the witness should be produced. Is the witness here?

NR - not here, not expecting this. I think i can strike most of the witness statement.
J - I'm not going to deal with this separately, I'm going to deal with everything, it will be more efficient.
W - can I make those submissions now
J - you can make them when you want

but I would rather you do them altogether.
W - i will do them at the end.
J - you do them when you want. But lets' deal with this double claim. You have claimed twice for the same set of facts.
W - double recovery, in terms of your order, the order is about both claims

J - there may be two claims but there is only one chance to recover damages. You can try to persuade me, but I hope briefly.
(NB takes the witness stand - has whispered conference with W)
J - it's unusual to have a long convo on the way to the witness stand....

W - apologises
NB affirms. Discussion of NB witness statement, is NB's copy with highlighted portions, apparently in accordance with order.
(no one seems to have a highlighted copy except W)
W - offers to provide copy to NR.
NR - I think it's a printing problem, highlight

is very faint.
J - are you relying on the whole thing, or just the highlighted portions
W - the whole thing
J - well, what's the point
NB identifies statement and adopts it. Has read it last week, confirms true to best of knowledge and belief.

NR - reread para 22 please. You did not make a claim until Jan 2020.
NB - this has been going on since 2018.
NR - was your first claim of discrimination in 2018.
(J now instructing NB on how the bundle is paginated)

NB - confused as to what I'm looking for.
J - look for page 22, should have paras in it.
NR - first pleaded claim of discrimination is 2018
NB - 2018 was date of i/x (investigation), removal as a candidate, other matters
NR - that's the parliamentary candidacy, you have not

pleaded other matters including members of the Radical Association.
NB - there isn't but there should have been. It should have been pleaded, because it's all part of the discrimination.
J - you are making an argument. Ms W will do that competently on your behalf

NR - your witness statement covers a wide range of things that are not pleaded, including RA (radical association)
NB - yes
NR - you were diagnosed with depression in 2017 before the pleaded acts of discrim
NB - no
J - I don't understand the answer

J - 2017 comes before 2018
NB - explaining that she was targeted before the discrim pleading, it was part of the same continuing acts
NR - you make many complaints about how other members of the party have treated you, not by the structures of the LD party,

NB - it was so vicious, the hounding, they facilitated.
NR - I don't want to get into your personal life but aren't you also involved in the family courts
NB - yes, I am in the family courts, but the viciousness of my ex doesn't approach the threshold of the party activists.

It's unfortunate that this is all happening at the same time.
NR - moving on. Your evidence on the RA; culture has moved on, isn't as toxic as it was
NB - public culture has moved on, culture of the party has not moved on. The activists have been acting the same as the did in

2017, 2020 etc. Just as toxic.
NR - You don't mention that in fact all of your complaints were rejected by the LDs.
NB - they were rejected but started off a i/x process that has lasted years, I get thousands of complaints any time I tweet

NR - I'm talking about the tweets that Mr DaCosta investigated. Were they dismissed.
NB - the panel I believe at the time said there was no transphobia but Mr DaCosta then did more i/x against me.
J - we're talking about this i/x and these tweets

you are accepting that they were dismissed.
NB - yes.
NR - disc (disciplinary) outcome against you, you are referring to the outcome that says you can't hold office for 10 years
NB - no, the English Council meeting was on the Saturday when I wore the AHF t-shirt

I got the letter on Friday.
J - completely losing me. Do we need to look at this letter? It's an enormous witness statement, I haven't memorised it.
NR - let me take you to the claim first, to assist the court, there was a second set of complaints that were in autumn 2019.

Those were upheld. You claim for sanctions and for the delay in appealing the outcome.
NB - explaining that she wasn't allowed to appeal,
NR - just talking about what you are claiming, could you not appeal or was your appeal never scheduled

NB - never been allowed to appeal
NR - I'm talking about the complaint outcome in October 2019 - were you not allowed to appeal or was the appeal delayed
NB - I was not allowed to appeal
NR - you say that you did appeal and the issue was the delay

NB - I asked to appeal, was told repeatedly that I could not appeal and my appeals have never gone anywhere in the party structures. I presume that is down to the institutional capture of the party by the activists. It's not a delay but I have not been allowed to appeal.

J - are they documents that can speak to this
NR - the only document is the witness statement.
J - was there no disclosure in this case
W - explaining that everyone downed tools when the LD conceded
J - are there not letters and documents relating to this

W - it's costs and damages, not fact finding so we didn't submit those documents
J - it is embarrassing trying to figure out what the pleaded claims are. Ms W you may sit down.
NR - impact on injury to feelings of non-selection for parliament.

NR - is this early 2017, or even before?
NB - I can't remember
J - is the parliamentary list the same as the approved list
NB - there's a parliamentary list and a council list
J - does para 21 help?
NR - you say you got on the list in 2017, is that when the act

of discrim occurred.
NB - No, once you get on the list then you can put yourself forward, it takes time
NR - you're saying that your GC beliefs were not part of the selection process
NB - no one asked me any questions about my GC beliefs

J - what you are being asked is are your GC beliefs part of the reason you weren't selected for any of the seats you put yourself forward for because you weren't asked about them
NB - yes that's correct
NR - Wakefield seat, do you accept that in prior election LD got approx

943 votes. Is that correct?
NB - yes.
NR - I don't think it's controversial to take you to public elections results, the LD came behind Labour, Conservatives and Reform in that constituency in 2024?
NB - yes
NR - so there was no realistic prospect of you winning that seat

NB - it was not about winning it was about me beginning my career as a candidate
NR - you had no realistic chance to win
NB - no.
NR - now onto the amount of your claim, it's really one claim
NB - begins to explain value of claim

J - interrupts and says that NB is actually starting to disclose conversation between you and your solicitor, and that's a very difficult legal position. You might then be forced to disclose all discussions between you and your solicitor.

(discussion of date of claim form)
J - it is accepted that you signed these in 2022.
NB - yup
J - and this is the second claim or the amended first claim
NR - yes
J - don't say yes when I've give you 2 alternatives
NR - amended first claim

NR - you signed this pleading for £10K
NB - my understanding was that the amount of the claim would be increased, in good faith, that was my understanding
NR - I'm struggling a bit with this evidence, you signed a doc that valued the claim at £10k
NB - I understood that it would

be increased.
J - go back to the question. Did you sign a claim for £10k
NB - yes
NR - and is a general feature of your claim that you have exaggerated the hurt to your feelings
NB - exaggerated, lets talk about the viciousness of the activists within the party and the impact

on me (very emotional)
NB - no further qs
J - re-examination?
W - two matters, 'the claimant places her injured feelings in the upper band' (£45k) You signed it and Do you stand by this document today
NB - yes, I did and I do.

W - now on the injured feelings,
NR - what q is this following up on?
J - the last q Mr R.
W - turn to p 256 in the bundle
NR - I know exactly where this is going and it doesn't relate to today's evidence
<<Phone rings, J seeks guilty party, instructs all to turn off phones>>

<<happens again, now started>>
J/W - discussion about whether the matter relates to evidence in chief, J says no, NB finishes her evidence.
J - you're not going to call Mr Dixon, so you're not relying on this witness statement
NR - I'm only going to rely on limited portion

(sends judge to specific para)
W - the entire witness statement must be disregarded, I came today prepared to x examine Mr Dixon.
J - all of this is in the documents isn't it
W - but it should all be struck out
J - I give such weight as I deem fit, given that the witness was

not produced for x examination.
NR - relying on him that defence was based on pleaded claims.
J - I don't need him to determine that
W - it isn't just a matter of looking at the 2024 election, he doesn't cover details of the 2019 election that are relevant

J - what I am talking about is the content of his witness statement, what he says about the election, you accept that those are true? Goes through election results
W - yes election results are publicly available, but information about the LD federal board are not

J - is this not in the public domain? Is this information not readily available
W - I struggled to find that information
J - if I rise and give you time can you find that out
W - yes, I can try and do that.
J - I will do some checking myself.
Court rises, end of morning part 1

@threadreaderapp unroll please