Sentinel - Volume 7
Periodic Irregular Update on Tribunal Tweets & Open Justice
The adversarial nature of the justice system results in winners and losers. It can be via settlement or following evidence and argument from both sides. Sometimes those losses can rise to the level of a thrashing. Not a legal term but usually apparent from reading the written judgment. It has been a busy six months for freedom of belief and speech cases plus the odd judicial review. Our wrap up is below with links to coverage.
Losses (plaintiff or claimant)
Allison Bailey Appeal vs Stonewall [link to coverage]
Allison Bailey, a black lesbian barrister, sued her chambers and Stonewall, in the Central London Employment Tribunal. Ms Bailey helped to set up a new organisation for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, the LGB Alliance, to provide an alternative to Stonewall. Stonewall allegedly had her investigated by her chambers. Ms Bailey prevailed against her chambers in the original employment tribunal. See our previous coverage of the tribunal and related matters here: Allison Bailey vs GCC Omnibus.
She subsequently appealed the decision that Stonewall had not been found to have instructed, induced or caused, or attempted to induce or cause detriments. Her appeal was unsuccessful and as of this writing, no decision has been made on any further action.
Ms Bailey was represented by Peter Daly of Doyle Clayton and Ben Cooper KC of Doughty Street Chambers.
Kevin Lister vs New College Swindon [link to coverage]
Kevin Lister, a maths teacher of 20 years, lost his employment tribunal against his former employer, New College Swindon. He has, however, obtained leave to appeal some aspects of the judgment.
Mr. Lister also raised concerns in a training session as to what he describes as a 'trans-activist' teacher who he alleges was encouraging students to transition.
Mr. Lister alleges he was dismissed for not affirming a student who identified as transgender including not using new pronouns or name. He claimed unfair dismissal, direct discrimination & indirect discrimination. He was also placed on the Disclosure and Barring Service register.
Mr Lister litigated in person at his tribunal but has legal counsel for his appeals from DL Law.
Kenny McBridge vs Scottish Ministers [link to coverage]
Kenny McBride, a former civil servant of Transport Scotland, took the Scottish Government to an employment tribunal alleging discrimination on the basis of his ‘gender critical’ beliefs. He posted on a Scottish government intranet site highlighting the Sex Equality and Equity Network (SEEN) for the civil service. He complained and was dismissed within 24 hours. The complaint was never addressed.
Mr McBride was litigating in person.
Settlements
There are no winners in litigation, one party or the other prevails. No one embarks lightly on an employment tribunal or other legal proceedings. Settlements mean that the process (often the punishment) is over. That can mean less information in the public domain however, disappointing for trial watchers. Below is a round up of cases that have settled and links to coverage and relevant information.
Laura Favaro vs City University (link to coverage)
Dr. Laura Favaro was doing post-doctoral research on the silencing, discrimination and harassment of female academics who question gender identity theory at City University. In an ironic twist, after publication of her initial findings in a Times Education article, she alleged that she was ostracised, subjected to baseless complaints, had her research stopped, her research data confiscated, and lost her job.
Quoted in a Times Education article:
"no doubt that a culture of discrimination, silencing and fear has taken hold across universities in England, and many countries beyond.”
Approximately eight weeks before the hearing date, City University settled. Dr Favaro’s announcement is below. No details on any financial settlement. Dr Favaro was represented by Peter Daly of Doyle Clayton and Chris Milsom of Cloisters Chambers.
James Esses vs Metanoia Institute and the UK Council for Psychotherapy (link to coverage)
James Esses was expelled from his five year MSc therapist training course and notified of his expulsion via email from Metanoia Institute (accredited by Middlesex University), his course provider. Esses had lodged a public petition that sought to safeguard therapy and counselling for vulnerable children with gender dysphoria. The petition subsequently got 10,000 signatures and a response from the government in support of the safeguards Esses was seeking. A social media backlash culminated in his expulsion.
Esses has settled with both the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) and the Metanoia Institute. Both have issued statements recognising the validity of Esses’ gender critical beliefs and their role in therapeutic practice: UKCP here, and Metanoia Institute here. No details on any financial settlement. James Esses was represented by Peter Daly of Doyle Clayton and Akua Reindorf KC of Cloisters.
Lizzie Pitt vs Cambridgeshire County Council [Link to coverage here]
Lizzy Pitt, a social worker, took Cambridge County Council (CCC) to employment tribunal for for harassment and discrimination. CCC settled at 8:38 am on the morning that the case was due to begin, has admitted liability and agreed a preliminary financial settlement of [£55,000]. Ms Pitts’ legal team has asked for full costs on the grounds that CCC had no realistic chance of defending the case. The hearing on costs in scheduled for 20 & 21 August 2024.
Ms Pitt believes sex is real, that sex matters and following her participation in meetings of a workplace “LGBTQIA” group where she expressed her 'gender critical' belief, Ms Pitt was subjected to a group complaint by colleagues and a disciplinary process resulting in formal “management action”, which she alleges was designed to silence her.
Ms Pitt’s crowd funder contains her description of the workplace behaviour she experienced. Link here. Lizzie Pitt was represented by Liz McGlone of Didlaw and Naomi Cunningham of Outer Temple Chambers.
Natalie Bird vs Liberal Democrats [link to coverage here]
Natalie Bird, once a prospective parliamentary candidate and long serving member of the Liberal Democrats, was accused by party members of transphobia and disseminating transphobic materials, including wearing a Standing for Women t-shirt.
Following an investigation, Ms Bird was "barred from holding or standing for election to any party office for 10 years" because she was found to have "disseminated transphobic material over a prolonged time". Ms Bird was also removed from her position of chairwoman at a society of ideas, Radical Association, voted down by the same Lib Dem members.
Three and half years later, immediately before the court proceedings, the Liberal Democrat Party admitted all of Ms Bird’s claims including direct discrimination because of her gender-critical beliefs, indirect discrimination, victimisation and breach of contract.
Ms Bird is seeking costs in a hearing scheduled for 20 & 21 August. She is represented by Elliot Hammer of Branch Austin McCormick and Hayley McLorinan of 2 Temple Chambers.
Trounced
Litigation is the process of resolving a dispute in a court of law. One party will prevail but the other party may be able to find some hope for appeal or point to a modest settlement or a judgment that results in a narrow ‘technical’ win. But sometimes the outcome is a trouncing, the written judgment is clear and precise and the losing party can only go away and tend to their wounds.
Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre [link to coverage here]
Roz Adams succeeded in her claim against ERCC; the Tribunal unanimously decided that she had been unlawfully discriminated against and constructively dismissed. The remedies (damages) phase has not yet taken place. However it is safe to say that when the written judgment from the Tribunal includes the quotes below, the respondent has been trounced.
‘We would agree with the characterisation of the claimant's representative that this was a heresy hunt.” With regard to the disciplinary investigation.
‘The investigation was deeply flawed. Nico Ciubotariu's response to the claimant's genuine request for further detail about the broadening of the investigation that "it is about things you are reported to have said at various times". It is unfortunately a classic of its kind, somewhat reminiscent of the work of Franz Kafka. The investigation should not have been launched in the first place and was clearly motivated by a strong belief amongst the senior management and some of the claimant's colleagues that the claimant's views were inherently hateful.’ Further discussion of the disciplinary investigation.
“Given the Tribunal's view that from the outset the purpose of these disciplinary proceedings had been the agenda of the respondent's CEO to cleanse the organisation of those who did not follow her beliefs and that the respondent characterised the claimant's beliefs as indeed transphobic, our view was that this was most likely to be the reason why no apology was granted.” On the failure of ERCC management to apologies to Ms Adams.
The written judgment itself is linked here. Interesting reading.
Group seeks Judicial Review of Ban on Private Puberty Blocker Prescriptions [Link to coverage]
TransActual, an advocacy group for trans people and an anonymous claimant, YY, described as a trans young person were supported by the Good Law Project in a judicial review to overturn the ban on overseas provision of puberty blockers. The ban was imposed by the outgoing government as emergency legislation.
Permission to apply for judicial review was granted and the claim was then dismissed, in other words, the claimants lost. And not just the judicial review.
The Good Law Project, in particular, made a series of claims about the consequences of restricting access to ‘gender affirming care’. An independent review was undertaken by Professor Louis Appleby, University of Manchester
Department of Health and Social Care adviser on suicide prevention. The conclusion of the review is below. The review was commissioned after the change in government and the application for a judicial review.
The open letters keep coming…
We track open letters on our Substack. This year has been a bumper year - 59 and counting as of mid August 2024. Looking at the topics this year, the Cass Review features highly as well as sport, political parties and Wes Streeting, Health Secretary, specifically.
Thank you for subscribing to and supporting Open Justice with Tribunal Tweets.