Bailey (Appellant) v Stonewall Equality Limited and others (Respondents)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0017

Parties

Appellant(s)

Allison Bailey

Respondent(s)

Stonewall Equality Limited

(1) Garden Court Chambers Limited (2) Rajiv Menon KC AND Stephanie Harrison KC sued on behalf of all members of Garden Court Chambers

Issue

Did Stonewall Equality Ltd cause Garden Court Chambers to discriminate against Ms Bailey contrary to section 111(2) of the Equality Act 2010? What is the correct approach to causation for the purposes of section 111(2) of the Equality Act 2010?

Facts

Ms Bailey is a barrister. At the material time she was a barrister at Garden Court Chambers (“GCC” or “the Second Respondent”). Ms Bailey believes that a woman is defined by her sex. She disagrees with the beliefs of those who say that a woman is defined by her gender, and it is for the individual to identify. This is sometimes referred to as a “gender critical” belief. The ET found that Ms Bailey’s beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”). Stonewall Equality Ltd (“Stonewall” or “the First Respondent”) is a charity committed to advancing the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans people (“LGBT”). It set up a Diversity Champions scheme to promote inclusion in the workplace for those groups of people. In November 2018, GCC signed up to Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme. Ms Bailey objected to that in an email she sent to all members of GCC. In the second half of 2019, Ms Bailey posted a number of comments on Twitter (now X) which reflected her gender critical views and her objection to Stonewall’s work in relation to trans rights. Kirrin Medcalf, head of trans inclusion at Stonewall, made a complaint to GCC by email on 31 October 2019 in respect of 11 tweets posted by Ms Bailey since September 2019. On 4 November 2019, the complaint was sent to the investigator who was at that time a member of GCC. The investigator’s report concluded that two of Ms Bailey’s tweets were likely to have breached professional obligations. GCC asked Ms Bailey to take down the two tweets. Ms Bailey declined to do so. No further action was taken against Ms Bailey by GCC. Ms Bailey pursued a claim for discrimination in the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) against GCC and Stonewall. She succeeded in her claim against GCC and was awarded damages. There was no appeal by GCC. The ET dismissed the claim against Stonewall. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) and the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms Bailey’s appeals. Ms Bailey now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

13 February 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top