Giggle v Tickle Appeal Day 3 (Part 2 second part of morning) 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: Equality Aus:
Given that the stat is always speaking, what ordinary meaning changes over time.
Re GI, that speaks at the end of designated sex at birth. The text shows designation of sex is a social act, performed by someone on behalf of someone else on the basis of markers.

Giggle vs Tickle Federal Court appeal Day 3 Part 1. GC JP asked a qeustion yesterday about purpose (or Purvis?)- definition of appropriate comparator. refers to another case in Qld (missed section). Qld 2018 decision. the court of appeal extracts definition of disability in Purvis before High court. concept of disability "resulting" in disturbed beahviour. 2 components of reasoning 1/ disability. 2/comparator

Day 2, part 2: Tribunal tweets for 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… Back after lunch. NH responds to GC suggestion about new arguments being put. 7D1a is the grounds relied upon. Bromwitch constructed the case as indirect discrimination which meant SG's team's case was not explored in detail. It was a special measure - as was argued.

Giggle v Tickle appeal Monday morning part 2. (Opening remarks missed but seems the new ground will be dealt with “as they come to it”). GC some arguments no longer pressed (missed which ones). NH we propose to look at the history of various provisions. Then proceed to appeal grounds: namely, the question of gender identity, the true meaning in the Act of the word sex, and woman, and man. Section 7d and b and section 5(??) of the Act. Then deal with appeal grounds 1-3

These are the Tribunal tweets for 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… Giggle v Tickle appeal Monday afternoon part 3

Kenny McBride is in court today to appeal the outcome of claim of unfair dismissal. Tribunal Tweets has permission to live tweet the proceedings. It is expected to begin at 2 pm today. Our previous reporting of his tribunal can be found here.
open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltw…

R - Key witness is RH - that person is not available in September.

[dates discussion]

J - normally claimants go first - to interpose R's witness at first would be undesirable.

C - it's ceremonial. It doesn't make a lot of practical difference. R - ET will need a couple of days to read. Cross exam of RH will take {a couple of days].

J understands C needs to speak to counsel - wants to get dates listed as soon as possible.

[dates discussion continues - and availability of claimants]

County Durham & Darlington NHS Foundation Trust has applied to suspend the management directions & adjourn the Darlington nurses tribunal, which is listed for 16/6- 4/7.

Regional Employment Judge Robertson has given us permission to attend the 10am remote preliminary hearing. We are a volunteer collective of citizen journalists reporting legal cases on freedom of speech and belief.

Please subscribe to our stack (link in bio) for the media coverage and daily court reports. Paid subscriptions support our work.

#OpenJustice

Welcome to the afternoon session of DAY 7 of ex-primary school teacher 'A' v Nottingham County Council

'A' claims victimisation for whistleblowing & unfair dismissal for refusing to 'socially transition' a pupil

1.45pm start
Find previous reports/info on our substack (link ⬇️)

'A' was formerly referred to as 'Hannah' in 2024 case - which collapsed after a panel member's social media content was alleged to indicate anti-religious bias. This was later confirmed after a judicial conduct investigation in August 2024.tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/hannah-v-a-p…

We are live-tweeting (now over from the Tribunal Tweets 1 account) from the morning session, day 6 of the rehearing of ‘A’ v Nottingham County Council, starting at 11 am. Day 1 was a reading day. Note: The Claimant was referred to as ‘Hannah’ in the previous 2024 hearing.

We hope to resume at 15:45 for the final session of Randall vs Trent College, employment appeal tribunal. The appeal has been agreed by consent and the case will be returned to ET for a full re-hearing of the merits. The afternoon discussion has been on costs. Abbreviations
BR - Bernard Randall, former chaplain of Trent College
TC - Trent College, first respondent
JH - J Hallows, second respondent
JR - J Rimington, third respondent
JT - His Honour Judge Tayler, sitting alone

We will return shortly to Fr Bernard Randall appealing his unsuccessful employment tribunal result following his dismissal as chaplain of Trent College. RB is being used for the respondents barrister as we didn't have the name. Paul Wilson, the Mr Wilson from an earlier tweet, is RB.

We are waiting still.

Randall's appeal has been agreed by consent, the case will be returned to the Employment Tribunal. The parties are discussing draft directions to accompany the judgment. BR's counsel is seeking a change of location and a speedy hearing.
Hope to be back at 12 pm. Parties have returned.

NF - is BR's barrister
RB - Respondents Barrister (Paul WIllson)

NF- have agreement on a set of directions, for annexing to ruling. Not agreed change of venue. This tribunal has power to remit to former or a new tribunal. Seems no jump to remit to locatio

Fr Bernard Randall is at the Employment Appeals Tribunal today. Appealing his unsuccessful employment tribunal result following his dismissal as chaplain of Trent College. We hope to be reporting on the appeal from 10:30 Our previous coverage of the case is here:
Dr Randall alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his religion and beliefs and unfairly dismissed. Trent College maintains that the role of chaplain was eliminated as a cost control measure.tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/bernard-rand…

PART 7. Day 2. Afternoon. DG (AHRC) closing.
DG: Oral submissions of AHRC complement written submission. Will take them in a classical way issue by issue. LH contends that there is a community of individuals who don’t want the applicant to have an exemption. He includes the AHRC. That is not the position of the AHRC, which has taken care to be impartial in responding to A case and respecting its statutory responsibilities. AHRC has expressed no view on what the outcome of this appeal should be, and has not said what the A can and cannot do in the tribunal

PART 6. Day 2, morning.
M How are we going for time?
LH I need till around 1.15 for closing statements
We are very grateful for accommodating LAG supporters in the room. LH [CLOSING STATEMENT] simple points 1/ LAG means no harm to anyone, 2/LAG wants the same human rights as offered to anyone, 3/ LAG is not seeking resources or anything else, 4/ there are others that do not want that to happen and that includes the AHRC.

1/ LAG vs AHRC Tuesday 3rd September DG closing submission part b [Part 8 overall?] DH: paragraph 2 it’s around 31 32 there is also a para 82 87 M: seeks to clarify if this is in the act or is DG’s argument ... 2/ DH: you will have heard CE of CA about that line of questioning about LBGTQI who are born female and are lesbian in her evidence that sex is binary and immutable so people DFAB will then take the gender ID of TIM or female and that is ...

DAY 2. Part 5.
M: enters the room: discussion about Dr Blake over whether she is required for CE so her evidence stands as is.[discussion about procedure]
LH: So that is not the provenance of the witness M: I look forward to that, you are aware there is a slight contradiction with the RA position. What is the difference between written and oral evidence?

Part 4, Day 1, afternoon. Dr Elena Jeffreys (EJ) appears on videolink.
Introductions and affirmation of witness
DG introduction can we please start with your full name and address
EJ Gives details
DG did you provide an expert report for this proceeding?
EJ Yes DG Date of report Have you read report or anything you want to add to it ?
EJ Lesbian space project I've heard other versions of what haopened since I submitted the report but none of it I can verify.

PART 3, day 1, morning. CA cross examination. M asked CA ‘what are your pronouns’. Peal of laughter from audience.
Clerk (James): CA took oath on affirmation. CA stated that having difficulty hearing, asked if there was amplification. M said he would try to speak up. LH: asked CA for full name and address. CA answered.
LH: two witness statements? One dated 21 july 2024 and second reply dated 28 august 2024. No changes? CA no. LH asked for those statements be her evidence in chief.

DG At para 23 of applicants submission there is nothing particular in SDA that limits the discretion of the AHRC but it is unfettered. DG but it is by the non-discrimination categories DG Browning says there are negative stipulations including not discriminating aginstr people on basis of GI.