I thought you'd be pleased to know. Apparently Garden Court had asked that she be liable for 40 -50% of their £675k costs and the courts said no, you owe her £20 k. So it is a massive win.
OK, this is sorta screwy to me. Seems Ms Bailey is a founder of a charity, LGB Alliance (good on her!), and had some unkind things to say about another charity, Stonewall (which eponymous event in history was only about homosexuals - not trans, not "A", not "I", not "+", but maybe, just maybe, a bit of the "Q"). I think she sued Stonewall? But lost? Not sure what her claim was against Stonewall. She lost work as a result of her "Chambers" (the UK system of trial lawyers is really weird) not caring for her thoughts on Stonewall and trans-ism which she thought was "extreme"? But she lost against Stonewall. I think. But she sued her Chambers for income lost because they did not send her the usual work - seems GCC is fairly aligned in spirit and views with Stonewall. But her "employer" (right?) had to pay her money even though she did not have to pay Stonewall its costs of defending? Do I have any of this correct?
Bailey sued her Chambers and Stonewall because Stonewall advised her Chambers to stop briefing her etc because of her outspoken GC stance which included her work on the LGB Alliance.
She took both her Chambers and Stonewall to court. She won direct discrimination against her Chambers , but not against Stonewall. She has appealed the Stonewall part up to a higher court and they have agreed to hear the appeal. Stonewall said that their employees had organised against her but they had nothing to do with that, even though it was on the Stonewall notice board (going from memory)
Garden Court Chambers is a v right-on set of chambers (barristers are all self employed -- by law -- but can band together in what are essentially firms for the purposes of administering work) Several members of her chambers were active in Stonewall and saw Stonewall as a good source of future work and thought she was going to jeopardise that.. She alleged that the clerks withheld work from her and the court agreed with her. I forget the amount they will have to pay her.
She put a costs order in as did GCC as she did not win everything. GCC wanted 50% of their 675k paid by Bailey. Normally each side pays their own costs. In this case, the court decided because GCC's case preparation was so poor, they will have to pay all their own costs plus £20k of Bailey's costs (the max they could award without dragging the case out further). It is a win for Bailey.
It will be interesting to see what the Appeal Court decide on the other part with Stonewall.
Stonewall was originally just LGB but in 2012, added the T. It was a member of GCC who 'discovered' the T at the Stonewall riot and lobbied hard for that to be reflected if memory of the trial serves. Stonewall was hugely effective at lobbying in the UK, particularly for gay marriage but once that was adopted, the staff were worried about losing donations etc and opted for this approach.
Another great roundup, Ma'am. And nice one: "(NB that sentence could be shortened to Sometimes Biden forgets and left there)". haha!
"I’d rather thought checking the copyright date would be sufficient but obviously I was mistaken." I was mistaken on that point also. Glad You found that out, Michelle!
Those points of law You pointed out were great. I read a few more and liked these:
76: "... the fact that Mermaids and those they support have been affected emotionally and/or socially is insufficient to provide them with standing to bring this appeal, no matter the depth of the feelings resulting from the Decision or the strength of their disagreement."
68: "Only when differing views are expressed, contradicted, answered and debated will the legislature be able to obtain the fullest picture of the views held by those they represent in order to create laws that are reflective of and required by society as a whole."
Who would-a thunk it? TYTY, Michelle. (Also wanted to thank You for getting the date formatted correctly. ;-)
Thank you for the congratulations on the date. Happens every now and again. LOL.
Griffin J who co-wrote the opinion is apparently v good. It remains to be seen if the Good Law Project decide to appeal. If it was decided in their favour, it would be an opening for many of the big charities to sue smaller charities or for people to sue charities that they personally happened to disagree with. The court system in the UK is fairly broken and clogged up already....
And breaking news : Allison Bailey wins £20k (the maximum award she could get) from Garden Court in regards to their behaviour towards her re her Gender Critical beliefs. https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1677308251057139721?s=20
That's great! Nice catch!
I thought you'd be pleased to know. Apparently Garden Court had asked that she be liable for 40 -50% of their £675k costs and the courts said no, you owe her £20 k. So it is a massive win.
Lol! Score one for the good guys.
OK, this is sorta screwy to me. Seems Ms Bailey is a founder of a charity, LGB Alliance (good on her!), and had some unkind things to say about another charity, Stonewall (which eponymous event in history was only about homosexuals - not trans, not "A", not "I", not "+", but maybe, just maybe, a bit of the "Q"). I think she sued Stonewall? But lost? Not sure what her claim was against Stonewall. She lost work as a result of her "Chambers" (the UK system of trial lawyers is really weird) not caring for her thoughts on Stonewall and trans-ism which she thought was "extreme"? But she lost against Stonewall. I think. But she sued her Chambers for income lost because they did not send her the usual work - seems GCC is fairly aligned in spirit and views with Stonewall. But her "employer" (right?) had to pay her money even though she did not have to pay Stonewall its costs of defending? Do I have any of this correct?
Bailey sued her Chambers and Stonewall because Stonewall advised her Chambers to stop briefing her etc because of her outspoken GC stance which included her work on the LGB Alliance.
She took both her Chambers and Stonewall to court. She won direct discrimination against her Chambers , but not against Stonewall. She has appealed the Stonewall part up to a higher court and they have agreed to hear the appeal. Stonewall said that their employees had organised against her but they had nothing to do with that, even though it was on the Stonewall notice board (going from memory)
Garden Court Chambers is a v right-on set of chambers (barristers are all self employed -- by law -- but can band together in what are essentially firms for the purposes of administering work) Several members of her chambers were active in Stonewall and saw Stonewall as a good source of future work and thought she was going to jeopardise that.. She alleged that the clerks withheld work from her and the court agreed with her. I forget the amount they will have to pay her.
She put a costs order in as did GCC as she did not win everything. GCC wanted 50% of their 675k paid by Bailey. Normally each side pays their own costs. In this case, the court decided because GCC's case preparation was so poor, they will have to pay all their own costs plus £20k of Bailey's costs (the max they could award without dragging the case out further). It is a win for Bailey.
It will be interesting to see what the Appeal Court decide on the other part with Stonewall.
Stonewall was originally just LGB but in 2012, added the T. It was a member of GCC who 'discovered' the T at the Stonewall riot and lobbied hard for that to be reflected if memory of the trial serves. Stonewall was hugely effective at lobbying in the UK, particularly for gay marriage but once that was adopted, the staff were worried about losing donations etc and opted for this approach.
What a great, clear, and concise summary. Thank you!
Fabulous summary, as always.
I _deeply_ appreciate your summaries, by the way. American media's coverage of anything that takes place outside U.S. borders is shockingly awful
I am so pleased you find it interesting.
And I know that about the US media. I grew up there and was v surprised once I moved to the UK.
Another great roundup, Ma'am. And nice one: "(NB that sentence could be shortened to Sometimes Biden forgets and left there)". haha!
"I’d rather thought checking the copyright date would be sufficient but obviously I was mistaken." I was mistaken on that point also. Glad You found that out, Michelle!
Those points of law You pointed out were great. I read a few more and liked these:
76: "... the fact that Mermaids and those they support have been affected emotionally and/or socially is insufficient to provide them with standing to bring this appeal, no matter the depth of the feelings resulting from the Decision or the strength of their disagreement."
68: "Only when differing views are expressed, contradicted, answered and debated will the legislature be able to obtain the fullest picture of the views held by those they represent in order to create laws that are reflective of and required by society as a whole."
Who would-a thunk it? TYTY, Michelle. (Also wanted to thank You for getting the date formatted correctly. ;-)
Thank you for the congratulations on the date. Happens every now and again. LOL.
Griffin J who co-wrote the opinion is apparently v good. It remains to be seen if the Good Law Project decide to appeal. If it was decided in their favour, it would be an opening for many of the big charities to sue smaller charities or for people to sue charities that they personally happened to disagree with. The court system in the UK is fairly broken and clogged up already....
I know. It is disappointing.
As Simonside does have a known track up it, there would be public right of way.