Case 2202172/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202172/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout Representations
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this remote preliminary hearing, the tribunal dealt with a Rule 50 redaction application, the Claimant's amendment application, and the Respondents' applications for strike-out and deposit orders. It granted a temporary Rule 50 order redacting the names of three Stonewall Trans Advisory Group members from the public bundle until the first day of the final hearing unless earlier discharged, refused to call Judy Khan QC for cross-examination at this stage, and deferred Stonewall's costs application.
On the amendment and strike-out issues, the tribunal held that Garden Court Chambers and its Service Company were trade organisations within section 57 of the Equality Act 2010 and that the proposed amended pleading was properly framed under that provision rather than section 47. It accepted that the amended case was at least reasonably arguable and would need further particularisation at trial to identify the individuals whose conduct was relied on for liability under sections 109 and 110, particularly in relation to victimisation and the alleged indirect discrimination practices.
The tribunal found there was enough material to support an arguable victimisation case arising from the Claimant's October 2018 email, the launch of the LGB Alliance in October 2019, and the reaction to her tweets. It also found an arguable indirect discrimination case on the pleaded PCPs, including the allegation that gender-critical beliefs were treated as bigoted or unworthy of respect, and the allegation that Chambers allowed Stonewall to press for action against the Claimant. The tribunal said Stonewall's 31 October 2019 complaint could arguably amount to inducing the alleged unlawful conduct.
Applying the Selkent principles to amendment, and the Rule 37 and Rule 39 tests for strike-out and deposit orders, the tribunal concluded that the proposed amended claim stood more than a little reasonable prospect of success. It therefore granted the amendment and dismissed both the strike-out and deposit applications. No final liability decision or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal held there was a more than reasonably arguable victimisation case against Chambers and the Service Company, based on the 14 October 2018 email, the October 2019 LGB Alliance launch and related tweets, and alleged detriments including reduced instructions and the handling of complaints. The strike-out and deposit applications were dismissed; no final merits decision was made. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal treated the first indirect discrimination PCP as arguable, namely that Chambers and/or the Service Company, or those for whom they were liable, treated gender-critical beliefs as bigoted or otherwise unworthy of respect. The claim was allowed to proceed, but the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the pleaded conduct could arguably disadvantage the Claimant as a lesbian and that this aspect of the indirect discrimination case had more than little reasonable prospects of success. The claim was not struck out and no merits finding was made. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
| Other | The tribunal also held that Stonewall's 31 October 2019 complaint could arguably amount to inducing Chambers to subject the Claimant to detriments because of her beliefs and alleged protected acts, and rejected Stonewall's strike-out and deposit-order arguments. This was a procedural ruling only and not a final determination of liability. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Rule 50 open justice balancing exercise
- Selkent principles
- Rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
- Hendon v Ishmael
- Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd
- s.57 Equality Act 2010 trade organisation
- s.109 and s.110 Equality Act 2010
- s.111 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.