Thread by @tribunaltweets

Part 2 of the morning session here.

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/2051932840955179047

We resume.
J - I want to go back to parts of C's pleaded case. What is the act of indirect discrimination against the C and where do we see it.
NC - I say it is the state of affairs, that the R has adopted GI as it's institutional belief.
J - what is the act of indirect discrim

NC - I want to go to para 22, a person discriminates against another if it applies to her which is a PCP that is discriminatory, whether it is discriminatory is a matter of law. It applies it as an ongoing state of affairs. It is applies or would be applied to all members of

the trade union and places them at a disadvantage. Simply stated, it makes it a hostile environment to C and fellow members. Some PCPs are explicit, they aren't all of that form. I say that this is a perfectly good PCP, it has all those effects, the R should be asked to

justify that. And all of that is a matter for a full hearing, not for strike out.
J - how are we to know how and by whom the indirect discrimination is perpetrated
NC - if it fosters non-engagement, discourages from putting self forward for roles, less participation in union

There are places in the claim where those general statements give rise to specifics, if the R asked the C to relate the general statements to the specifics, we can do that. We can do that, but I cannot do it on the hoof as it were.

J - thank you, SB you said you want a brief right of reply
SB. - it is still unclear how the PCP has been manifested and applied and the reference to a state of affairs, does not come close engaging the requirements of section 19. The reason for that is that the tribunal has

jurisdiction of the relation between the member and the union. The PCP must regulate the relation between the trade union and that member. And it's got to be tangible. An example, if an employer produces a newsletter that an employee disagrees with, there is no PCP engaged

SB conts - the state of affairs of was described as a PCP. You can't in this pluralistic society say that a tweet or a motion that they disagree with is a PCP or creates a PCP. The focus on IB is an attempt to shoehorn this claim into section 19. The Sullivan Review motion

does not impose any requirements or constraints on a reader. It is not actually being applied to them as an individual. And we object to the amendment because it appreciably widens the claim. The C has to show that the PCP puts or would put her at a disadvantage. We don't

have that here. And C left active membership in 2020. We have no clarity, no dates. It's not appropriate to say that if R needs further clarity, they can ask for it. We are still no further forward on how the PCP has been applied.

J - NC do you need comment on anything SB had said there.
NC - simply the point the motion about Sullivan is not the PCP, it is simply one of many pieces of evidence of the state of affairs.
J - evidence of the pervasive nature.
NC - on sequence of events, we haven't had a

case management hearing where we would expect to deal with amendments, further particulars etc. We are at an early stage of this case, the strikeout application is a draconian proposal that would be better dealt with in case management.

J - as I predicted, I am going to reserve my judgment and issue it in writing. A request to those from the media, if any one has photographers outside, please be sensitive to others leaving the building. Please respect the rights of others to privacy.

NC - it reminds me that the skeleton arguments can be deemed to be public documents.
J - any comments SB?
SB - no objection, fair public usage.
J - the damn has been well and truly breached.
J - thanks to the parties. We will conclude.
Court rises.

@threadreaderapp unroll please