Natalie Bird has been awarded £14k for injury to feelings following admissions of discrimination by the Liberal Democrats. Today's hearing is expected to resume at 11:45 to discuss costs. Our coverage of this morning's oral judgment is here:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1876922…

We expect to be reporting on Natalie Bird vs the Liberal Democrats from the Royal Courts of Justice this morning, for the final time. Her Honour, Judge Evans-Gordon is expected to give her judgment on damages followed by arguments on costs. We expect to begin at 10 am. Our previous coverage is here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/natalie-bird…

Bird vs the Liberal Democrats will continue this morning, scheduled for a 10:30 am start. Reading over yesterday's coverage, it provides an accurate account of proceedings. Additional background may be a useful aid to understanding. Ms Bird claimed that the Liberal Democrats (both of the United Kingdom and of England) had discriminated against for her gender critical beliefs, including removing her as a Parliamentary candidate.

We are expecting to resume in Bird vs the Liberal Democrats at 2:30 pm. Our morning coverage is here:

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1868625966194655319

Abbreviations
NB/C - Natalie Bird, claimant
LD/R - Lib Dems, respondent
EW - Emma Walker, barrister for claimant
EH - Elliot Hammer, solicitor for claimant
NR - Nathan Roberts, Matrix Chambers for the respondent

We are back for Part 2 of the morning session in Bird vs the LD.
Morning session here:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1868596… EW - now explaining the number of elected members of the LD federal board, there were 15. But it's unclear that there were 3 elected positions in 2024.
J - there are 3 elected positions of the fed board, many members are ex officio, she is claiming for hurt feelings for not

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…

This is part 2 of the afternoon session at the Court of Appeal "Re Q", an application by a parent to prevent a minor child accessing a non-NHS 'gender' clinic before the age of 18. Part 1 is here:

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1867204646147911973

RB: few other points to flag up - [citation - "revisit of Gillick"] - important to bear in mind Q has right to medical confidentiality, and Q was v clear wd have strong objections to appellant seeing results of assessments etc

Good afternoon, welcome back to the Court of Appeal. We will start again at 2pm.

Mrs A seeks to prevent her child from obtaining cross sex hormones via a private prescription.

A - Mrs A
AB - Mrs A's Barrister
R - respondent
RB - respondents Barrister
F - Father
Q - the child AB - notes references on medical capacity act and what sections of rules are being used. Identifying before you Mundy lines argument.
*speaker issues in court*
AB - if there remains concerns about capacity the way forward is the same as when someone lacks capacity.

We continue coverage of Court of Appeal proceedings. Mrs A is seeking to prevent her child from obtaining cross sex hormones via private prescription. See pinned tweet for more, plus abbreviations.

Live stream


The Appellant (A) barrister (AB) continues AB: It's a narrow gate.
J1: Does this document apply to a private clinic?
AB: No
J1: What is role of CQC in regulation of private to NHS standards?

We plan to live tweet proceedings today from the Court of Appeals. Mrs A is seeking to prevent her child from obtaining cross sex hormones via private prescription. Expected to start at 10:30 am. The live stream will be here:
youtube.com/channel/UCvLfI… Mrs A and the child's father disagree on access to medical gender treatment outside the NHS. Mrs A obtained a 'prohibited steps' order preventing private provision of cross sex hormones. This order expires when the child reaches 16, early next year.
open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltw…

RC Addressing potential difficulties. First sexual orientation the court notes we address this. s12 regards orientation to sexes. The attraction is to a person who holds attraction to SO of a person. Using s9 defintion this logically applies to EA and changes the class of person RC y're attracted to. But doesnt affect ability of that person to evoke protection
J But it changes sexual attraction. What about assocs?
RC Important that SO of class of person doesnt change in consequnece of indiv person w GR and/or sex. A woman at birth orientated to woman

Part 2 of morning session. LI continues for SG. Abbreviations at the beginning of Part 1 of morning session.
Before I look at the structure of the Act, looking at the rqmnts for a GRC. The nature of the rqmnts makes it clear that the GRA makes provision for a change in status The rqmnts are onerous and profund. The rqmnts are at para 21-29. And ref to relevant provision of the GRA. Sec 11A application - made on the basis of living in the other gender as opposed to having changed gender abroad.

Good morning.
It's Day 2 of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers at the #SupremeCourt

"Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate which recognises that their gender is female, a "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010?"

#WhatIsAWoman Yesterday we heard representations for @ForWomenScot and @SexMattersOrg on how the Scottish Ministers position impacts the functioning of the Equality Act and it's practical application.

Today we will hear representatives for the Scottish Ministers and @EHRC give their position

We are back for the afternoon session of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers being heard at the Supreme Court.
"Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate which recognises that their gender is female, a "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010?" We expect to begin at 2pm.
Abbreviations
Claimant: FWS/C - For Women Scotland
AO - Aidan O’Neill KC, Barrister
SK - Spencer Keen, Barrister

Respondent: SG/R - Scottish Ministers & the Lord Advocate General
RC - Ruth Crawford, KC, Barrister
LI - Lesley Irvine, Advocate

Good morning. Today we cover For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers being heard at the Supreme Court.
"Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate which recognises that their gender is female, a "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010?" #WhatIsAWoman Abbreviations
Claimant:
FWS/C - For Women Scotland
AO - Aidan O’Neill KC, Barrister
SK - Spencer Keen, Barrister

Respondent:
SG/R - Scottish Ministers & the Lord Advocate General
RC - Ruth Crawford, KC, Barrister
LI - Lesley Irvine, Advocate

J - all Judges

Tribunal Tweets were at Sheffield Magistrates court this morning for the hearing Crown v Ben Lindsay; BL was charged with two counts of 'assault by beating' (dousing with tomato soup) of Kellie Jay Keen and another woman (MM) at the Sheffield Let Women Speak event on Sept 21 2024 Kellie Jay Keen (KJK) is the leader of the Party of Women (PoW) and founded and organises public Let Women Speak (LWS) events internationally, providing a platform for women to discuss the impacts of gender ideology on women and children.

@ForWomenScot vs the Lord Advocate (Government of Scotland) will be in the Supreme Court on 26-27 November, less than a week away. Here's a reminder 🧵of how we got here.
1/x tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/for-women-sc… For Women Scotland (FWS) challenged the Scottish Government on the definition of woman. The Supreme Court case will attempt to unravel the confusion around whether GRC's change Sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. In effect - what is a woman?
🧵 2/x

Dr Nigel MacLennan, then a trustee & President-Elect, has been successful in his #whistleblower appeal on Grounds 3 & 4 in his case against @BPSOfficial.

Grounds 1 & 2 were dismissed. There was no intention to enter into a contractual relationship so he wasn't a limb (b) worker. HHJ Tayler held that the Employment Tribunal failed to conduct the necessary broad-brush assessment to determine whether whistleblowing protection should extend to charity trustees to ensure compliance with the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression under ECHR Arts 10 & 14.

Good afternoon; welcome back to the Remedies hearing in the case of Roz Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.

tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edi… Our coverage of this morning's session is here:

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1845745662190588282

We are resuming the second session of the remedy hearing of Roz Adams v ERCC.
See threadreaderapp.com/thread/1845745… Addit abbreviations:

MW - Mridul Wadhwa
MR - Mairi Rosko, Chair ERCC Board
VL - Vicky Ling
SB - Sandy Brindley, CEO Rape Crisis Scotland
RCS - Rape Crisis Scotland
SG - Scottish Govt

We'll shortly be live tweeting the remedies Employment Tribunal hearing of Roz Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal in May was that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre unlawfully discriminated against Ms Adams and she was constructively dismissed. The judge found that the centre’s chief executive, Mridul Wadhwa, was behind a “heresy hunt” against Roz Adams who held “gender critical” beliefs, and said that the review “was clearly motivated by a strong belief among senior management and some of the claimant’s colleagues that