Giggle v Tickle Appeal Part 3 - Day 2 Federal Court case NSD1386/2024 Giggle for Girls & Anor v Roxanne Tickle. Heard by Full Bench of Australian Federal Court 4-7 August 2025. Livestreamed here.
Justices Perry, Kennett and Abraham presiding (JP, JK, JA)youtube.com/live/ru6pc2tGK…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tribunal Tweets 2 #OpenJustice

Tribunal Tweets 2 #OpenJustice Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets2

Feb 4
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
Image
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.
Read 47 tweets
Feb 4
Good morning, this is the final hearing day of Toshack vs GeoAmey. For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers continues on @tribunaltweets Image
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.
Read 67 tweets
Oct 22, 2025
Thread 2 AB vs SW

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
Read 77 tweets
Oct 22, 2025
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…
Our substack page for the case can be found here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

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’
Read 45 tweets
Oct 21, 2025
Continued this afternoon's session
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.
Read 13 tweets
Oct 21, 2025
The Appeal of Allison Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd re-starts this afternoon at 13.55. The proceedings will also be live-streamed here:

youtube.com/@RoyalCourtsof…
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
Read 100 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(