The Supreme Court announced on 6 May 2026, that it has granted Barrister Allison Bailey permission to appeal; against the Court of Appeal’s 2025 decision to dismiss her claim against the charity Stonewall, for causing the discrimination she was found to have been subjected to by her former Chambers (Garden Court).
Ms Bailey previously brought successful claims for discrimination, on the grounds of protected gender critical beliefs, against Garden Court. However, her claims against Stonewall, for causing the discrimination (through complaints it raised with Garden Court about Ms Bailey’s expression of her protected beliefs) failed – not only at the Employment Tribunal stage, but also subsequently on appeal in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal.
However, Ms Bailey has now been granted permission to appeal by the Supreme Court, and her claims against Stonewall will be heard by the highest court in the UK; which will look at the provisions of section 111(2) of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) and determine whether Stonewall should be held liable for causing the discrimination that Ms Bailey was subjected to by Garden Court. The Supreme Court’s decision here will provide important guidance on the question of when a third-party organisation may be found to be liable for causing discrimination carried out by an employer.
We take a closer look at the case, and explore the significance of the appeal to the Supreme Court in more detail, below.
What happened in the Bailey v (1) Garden Court Chambers and (2) Stonewall case?
Ms Bailey, a criminal law barrister and founding member of the LGB Alliance, holds gender critical beliefs. Specifically, she believes that women are defined by their biological sex rather than gender identity, that a person cannot change their sex (or “self-identify” their gender); and that gender identity as “proselytised” by Stonewall, is severely detrimental to women (because it denies them female only spaces) and to lesbian women (because it labels them as “bigoted” for being same-sex attracted, rather than same-gender attracted). Her gender critical beliefs are protected under the EqA.
In 2018, Ms Bailey’s Chambers – Garden Court – signed up to be a member of Stonewall’s “Diversity Champions” scheme. Stonewall is a charity which advocates for the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer and non-binary (“LGBTQ+”) people. Its Diversity Champions scheme aims to promote inclusion for LGBTQ+ staff, and encourage employers to adopt policies that support gender self-identification, in the workplace. Ms Bailey replied to Garden Court’s email, announcing membership of the scheme, setting out her objections; on the basis that, while she supported trans rights, she felt that Stonewall was promoting “trans extremism” with its approach to gender self-identification, and was complicit in a campaign of intimidation of those who questioned gender self-identity.
In 2019, Ms Bailey posted a number of tweets expressing her gender critical beliefs, and criticising Stonewall for “sexist and homophobic” campaigning in support of gender self-identification (which she alleged encouraged hostility towards, and threats of violence against, women and people who had gender critical beliefs). One of her tweets said “this is an historic moment for the lesbian, gay and bisexual movements. The LGB Alliance launched in London tonight, and we mean business. Spread the word, gender extremism is about to meet its match”.
Stonewall complained to Garden Court about 11 of Ms Bailey’s tweets (and objected to her involvement in the LGB Alliance, which takes a gender critical approach); alleging that she was “transphobic”, and calling for Garden Court to “do what is right and stand in solidarity with trans people”. Garden Court began an investigation, and issued a public statement to that effect. The outcome of the investigation was that the investigator found that two of Ms Bailey’s tweets likely breached her professional obligations. Garden Court asked Ms Bailey to remove the tweets, but she refused. During this process, Ms Bailey was subjected to death threats and other forms of online abuse, but when she reported this to Garden Court, members did little to support her and were openly hostile towards her; suggesting that she had brought matters on herself.
In 2020, Ms Bailey brought claims against Garden Court in the Employment Tribunal, for direct discrimination and victimisation, and was successful. She was awarded £22,000 (plus interest) for injury to feelings (including £2,000 for aggravated damages) and £20,000 in costs; a large award, which took into account the hostility and lack of support she had received from members of Chambers, and the unreasonable approach that Garden Court’s solicitor had taken during the legal proceedings. Garden Court did not appeal this decision.
However, Ms Bailey’s claims against Stonewall – for causing Garden Court to discriminate against her contrary to section 111(2) of the EqA – failed. Ms Bailey’s appeals to both the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal on this point were unsuccessful; so, she applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal.
What did the Supreme Court say?
On 6 May 2026, the Supreme Court granted Ms Bailey permission to appeal against the dismissal of her claim against Stonewall (for causing Garden Court to discriminate against her).
The Supreme Court will now look at the question of whether Stonewall caused the discrimination that Ms Bailey was subsequently subjected to by Garden Court. Ms Bailey’s main grounds of appeal argue that Stonewall should also be liable for the discrimination that took place, because its actions “were themselves discriminatory and led in turn to [Garden Court’s] discrimination”: Stonewall made the complaint against Ms Bailey “because of its incorrect and discriminatory position that Ms Bailey’s protected gender critical beliefs were “transphobic””, and if it hadn’t been for that complaint, Garden Court would not have discriminated against her1.
The case will be listed for a full appeal hearing in the Supreme Court in due course.
Why is this significant?
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case, once made, will provide important guidance (from the highest court in the country) on the question of when a third-party organisation may be liable for causing discrimination carried out by an employer; here in the context of seeking to influence the application of and/or adherence to a workplace equality and diversity scheme.
As the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted in its earlier judgment, there were (until its judgment) no reported authorities which directly shed light on the meaning of “cause” in section 111(2) of the EqA, and there remain no higher appellate court judgments on this issue. This will be the first.
If your organisation has any questions on any of the points raised above, please get in touch, and our team of experienced Employment lawyers would be happy to help.
The material in this article is provided for guidance and general information only and is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice upon which you should rely. In particular, the information should not be used as a substitute for a full and proper consultation with a suitably qualified professional. Please do contact the Bates Wells team if you require further advice.