Bailey: “Outrageous and unlawful act”
The Court of Appeal is to consider a barrister’s claim that LGBT charity Stonewall “caused or induced” discrimination against her by her chambers.
It has given permission for Allison Bailey to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Bourne in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) earlier this year
He said the “key point” was that, on the facts found by the tribunal, responsibility for determining the complaint against Ms Bailey in a discriminatory way “lay only with” Garden Court Chambers (GCC).
In July 2022, an employment tribunal ordered GCC to pay Ms Bailey damages of £22,000 for injury to feelings over the way it investigated complaints about her gender-critical views. It found she was discriminated against or victimised in two out of five alleged detriments.
GCC was later also ordered to pay costs of £20,000.
However, it rejected Ms Bailey’s claim that Stonewall had directed GCC’s investigation process and it was this that she unsuccessfully appealed.
She argued that Stonewall caused or induced GCC’s direct discrimination against her. This would be contrary to section 111 of the Equality Act 2010, which says a person must not instruct another to do in relation to a third person something in contravention of various provisions of the Act, including discriminating against someone because of a protected belief.
In granting permission, Lord Justice Singh wrote: “The grounds have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this court.
“In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.”
Ms Bailey wrote on X: “It is not disputed that in 2019, Stonewall wrote to Garden Court Chambers: ‘for Garden Court Chambers to continue associating with [Ms Bailey] puts us in a difficult position with yourselves’ and that Stonewall trusted Garden Court ‘would do what is right and stand in solidarity with trans people.’”
She continued: “I am a lesbian, and I believe that this was an outrageous and unlawful act by Stonewall, a charity established to advocate on behalf of and protect the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people from discrimination…
“If my appeal is upheld, Stonewall’s actions will have been unlawful. The result will be to protect employees from similar behaviour in the future, which, in the current climate I believe is essential.”
Her solicitor, Peter Daly, a partner at London firm Doyle Clayton, said: “We are pleased that permission has been granted in terms which satisfy both of the alternative tests for permission.
“There is currently a lack of caselaw about section 111 Equality Act 2010, a provision which has potentially significant implications, and we look forward to driving the law forward in this area.
“Our case has always been that the email sent by Stonewall satisfied the requirements of section 111 and was therefore unlawful. We look forward to making that case before the Court of Appeal and are optimistic as to the result.”
We have approached Stonewall for comment.
The appeal is not expected to be heard in the first half of 2025. Ben Cooper KC will continue to represent Ms Bailey in court.
Leave a Comment