Gender-critical barrister wins groundbreaking claim against her vets

---

Bailey: Friendship with JK Rowling was subject of gossip

The barrister who successfully sued her chambers over the way it investigated complaints about her gender-critical views has now won a groundbreaking claim against a veterinary practice for similar discrimination.

Allison Bailey said her case against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd for unlawful discrimination showed the courts “can and will take action where gender critical women are denied goods and services on account of their beliefs”. She said it was the first successful claim of its type.

His Honour Judge Holmes in Central London County Court said there was “strong evidence” that staff at the practice knew about Ms Bailey’s beliefs, as well as the case brought against Garden Court Chambers.

In July 2022, in a high-profile case, an employment tribunal ordered the set to pay her 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.

However, it rejected Ms Bailey’s claim that Stonewall had directed the chambers’ investigation process. She unsuccessfully appealed this to the Employment Appeal Tribunal but has been given permission to appeal on to the Court of Appeal.

Her claim against the vets, who trade as Palmerston Veterinary Group in Essex and she had been with for nearly 13 years, followed the practice suddenly de-registering her in January 2023. When she asked why, she was told it because “we feel that the manner in which you have interacted with our team has been inappropriate”.

HHJ Holmes said there was evidence that Ms Bailey “did not behave well towards the staff in the practice” – she could be “difficult and aggressive”.

While the barrister was not violent or abusive, “she can be seen by others as being direct to the point of rudeness”; staff at the vets perceived her as “a difficult client”.

But there was also “strong evidence that Ms Bailey’s gender critical beliefs were known within the practice”, and that her litigation against Garden Court was discussed – the judge did not accept the evidence of some of the practice’s witnesses that they were unaware of either.

While the vet that she generally dealt with supported her in the case, “others did not”, and again the judge was unconvinced by some of the witnesses’ evidence that they did not have an opinion on Ms Bailey’s views.

Indeed, during cross-examination, the practice’s clinical director was asked whether she considered gender-critical beliefs to be bigoted. “It was quite clear that if Dr Munro was hesitant to go as far as to use the word bigot, she was just a hair’s breadth away from it,” the judge said.

Dr Munro had shared an ‘inclusive language’ guide at a team meeting that set out how to address trans people, and told the court that, as it was Pride month, she wanted to do more than just hang a rainbow flag outside the practice (which it did at one of its branches).

Ms Bailey’s friendship with JK Rowling, much in the news over recent years for her own gender-critical views, was also a topic of gossip within the vets.

On the evidence, which included the practice’s failure to follow its own policy on client behaviour, HHJ Holmes said Ms Bailey had proved on the balance of probabilities that it committed an act of unlawful discrimination in de-registering her.

The vets then failed to prove that the decision was not taken because of her gender-critical beliefs.

The judge said: “I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a culture within the practice which was contrary to Ms Bailey’s gender critical views…

“At least one of the things that people disliked about her was her belief. Having not accepted the evidence which sought to deny those views it seems to me that it is difficult to accept the evidence that the decision was taken solely on the basis of Ms Bailey’s behaviour.”

Ms Bailey said: “This judgment shows that it is unlawful to deny services to people who believe that sex is binary, biological, immutable and of vital importance.

“For too long, activists in a range of settings have promoted the incorrect view that it is somehow good or kind, or in furtherance of trans people’s rights, to unlawfully discriminate in this way.”

Her solicitor, Peter Daly of Doyle Clayton, said: “This is a case which shows that an unquestioning acceptance of gender identity dogma, far from being an anti-discriminatory or a ‘kind’ measure, can in fact lead businesses into unlawful discrimination.”

The court will shortly hold a hearing to determine the damages and costs payable to Ms Bailey.