Allison Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd & Ors

Allison Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd & Ors

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that Stonewall's complaint was merely a protest and not the effective cause of the discrimination suffered by Ms Bailey. The dominant and effective cause of the discrimination (Detriment 4) was the investigation and actions of Garden Court Chambers, which broke the chain of causation. Stonewall did not instruct, cause, induce, or attempt to cause or induce GCC's discriminatory acts. The legal test under section 111(2) requires more than 'but for' causation; it requires an evaluative judgment, and on the facts, liability did not attach to Stonewall.

Parties
Appellant: Allison Bailey; First Respondent: Stonewall Equality Ltd; Second Respondent: Garden Court Chambers; Third Respondent: Rajiv Menon KC and Stephanie Harrison KC sued as representatives of all members of Garden Court (except the Appellant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Victimisation, Causation in Discrimination, Equality Act 2010 Section 111, Protected Beliefs, Novus Actus Interveniens, Inducement and Causing Discrimination
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Law Direct Discrimination Victimisation Causation in Discrimination Equality Act 2010 Section 111 Protected Beliefs Novus Actus Interveniens +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allison Bailey

Appellant

Stonewall Equality Ltd

First Respondent

Garden Court Chambers

Second Respondent

Rajiv Menon KC and Stephanie Harrison KC sued as representatives of all members of Garden Court (except the Appellant)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Stonewall Equality Ltd caused or induced Garden Court Chambers to discriminate against Allison Bailey contrary to section 111(2) and (3) of the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal applied the correct legal test for causation and inducement under section 111
  3. 3 Whether the findings of fact by the Employment Tribunal were perverse or unsupported

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that Stonewall's complaint was merely a protest and not the effective cause of the discrimination suffered by Ms Bailey. The dominant and effective cause of the discrimination (Detriment 4) was the investigation and actions of Garden Court Chambers, which broke the chain of causation. Stonewall did not instruct, cause, induce, or attempt to cause or induce GCC's discriminatory acts. The legal test under section 111(2) requires more than 'but for' causation; it requires an evaluative judgment, and on the facts, liability did not attach to Stonewall.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed