What this case tells us about the use of #LawFare in the battle against the assumed supremacy of gender identity ideology; its limitations, its consequences and its impact beyond the court room.
Thank you for this clear explanation. Would a case against AA themselves have been possible instead? (Just thinking about future battles!) Will certainly contribute again if needed, such bravery must be supported and this is about all of us.
Is it a given that she will have to pay the defendant’s costs? Does the judge have some discretion here, particularly given the late disclosures and the protracted nature of the case as a result?
I am unsure. I thought costs were not awarded in ET cases BUT this one went into argument about the common law duty of care. But even if she doesn’t have to contribute to the Defendant’s costs, she is still falling short of meeting her own, by about £40k
I went to ET in late 2015. Costs are capped at £20k unless the defendant asks for a detailed costs order, which mine did. The led to costs hearing was granted which would have been crippling in itself (my costs if the costs hearing went ahead were estimated around £25-£30k), I was told I would almost certainly have to pay a proportion of the ET costs - up to six figures and then another £35k costs hearing for the defendant on top. The costs hearing was set six months ahead so I also faced the horrible stress and uncertainty of yet another case when I was at my lowest ebb. I had to settle before the costs hearing because the alternative was losing my house. Apparently, because my husband's share of our house would have left us with enough to buy at least a one bed property, my whole share was at risk (and by then the house was the only financial asset I had). The irony of bringing a sex discrimination/harassment claim and then facing the prospect of ending up financially dependent on my husband wasn't lost on me. I ended up settling on £48k plus legal costs for me (on top of my own ET costs) of another £17k. I'll never be able to recover from it financially. It was horrendous and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
I understand and support the lawfare approach but it is a hard path for those at the centre of the storm. We really need some kind of centralised fund to cover these cases - similar to a trade union (if unions weren't captured). I would prefer to pay a regular sub to create such a fund rather than having to make impossible choices about which case is worthy of the money I can spare each month. Presumably the successful cases get costs awarded so the fund could be renewed by the wins to keep us fighting another day.
I hadn’t realised until reading this that the uni had actually taken disciplinary action against AA. Whether it was done in a timely manner is subjective of course, but if there was a time lag it left Raquel unsupported on campus. The fact that proceedings were dropped because of concerns about AA’s mental health makes me seethe if this was manipulated. Having a son who did actually attempt suicide and is permanently brain injured and needs 24 hr nursing care, I know the risk of suicide is a terrible thing, but I can’t help feel that some people use it as a weapon. If AA has in fact been enabled to carry on with their behaviour it will not help them in the long run.
I feel that even though they won against Raquel, the reputational damage will be substantial. I understand that Raquel is not the only student who has been left unsupported by Bristol Uni. She can certainly hold her head up high. I can only hope that AAs identity is revealed and he faces the consequences of his actions.
Is it a given that she will have to pay the defendant’s costs? Does the judge have some discretion here, particularly given the late disclosures and the protracted nature of the case as a result?
Did this brave and resourceful young woman not receive early advice that indicated the probable weak aspect of her claim, namely that the college owed her no duty in respect of the behaviour of AA and the Union?
I don’t think it’s that clear cut. I am certainly surprised the Judge was so clear that the Students Union has nothing to do with the University! They are clearly linked institutions and subject to many of the same rules. In my view.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but reading this I wonder if Raquel was well advised to take her case forward, given that the Uni is not legally responsible for the actions of the students union as an entity. It leaves a loophole that the SU can act maliciously posting inflammatory stuff on social media, which others then amplify, and hide behind its anonymity. It would have to go pretty far presumably for a case to be taken against the officers.
I hope Bristol University will not chase her for costs - end result feels like management consultancy on how best to deal with issues caused by the likes of Stonewall. Maybe other universities can chip in
If the judge accepted it as a novel case, for which no precedent existed nor analogous case law from which the law could incrementally develop, surely the judge erred by not resorting to Caparo on test for duty. This was confirmed in Robinson as the correct approach.
Because the Judge ruled the University had done what it needed to do and had no wider duty to Raquel. Although it was criticised for being so slow and not keeping her properly informed.
Thank you for this clear explanation. Would a case against AA themselves have been possible instead? (Just thinking about future battles!) Will certainly contribute again if needed, such bravery must be supported and this is about all of us.
I suspect it's now out of time. And if pursued at the time would probably have got no where.
Is it a given that she will have to pay the defendant’s costs? Does the judge have some discretion here, particularly given the late disclosures and the protracted nature of the case as a result?
I am unsure. I thought costs were not awarded in ET cases BUT this one went into argument about the common law duty of care. But even if she doesn’t have to contribute to the Defendant’s costs, she is still falling short of meeting her own, by about £40k
We better start amplifying her fund-raiser then 😥
I went to ET in late 2015. Costs are capped at £20k unless the defendant asks for a detailed costs order, which mine did. The led to costs hearing was granted which would have been crippling in itself (my costs if the costs hearing went ahead were estimated around £25-£30k), I was told I would almost certainly have to pay a proportion of the ET costs - up to six figures and then another £35k costs hearing for the defendant on top. The costs hearing was set six months ahead so I also faced the horrible stress and uncertainty of yet another case when I was at my lowest ebb. I had to settle before the costs hearing because the alternative was losing my house. Apparently, because my husband's share of our house would have left us with enough to buy at least a one bed property, my whole share was at risk (and by then the house was the only financial asset I had). The irony of bringing a sex discrimination/harassment claim and then facing the prospect of ending up financially dependent on my husband wasn't lost on me. I ended up settling on £48k plus legal costs for me (on top of my own ET costs) of another £17k. I'll never be able to recover from it financially. It was horrendous and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
I understand and support the lawfare approach but it is a hard path for those at the centre of the storm. We really need some kind of centralised fund to cover these cases - similar to a trade union (if unions weren't captured). I would prefer to pay a regular sub to create such a fund rather than having to make impossible choices about which case is worthy of the money I can spare each month. Presumably the successful cases get costs awarded so the fund could be renewed by the wins to keep us fighting another day.
That’s awful. I am so sorry. It’s certainly a massive problem with LawFare.
I hadn’t realised until reading this that the uni had actually taken disciplinary action against AA. Whether it was done in a timely manner is subjective of course, but if there was a time lag it left Raquel unsupported on campus. The fact that proceedings were dropped because of concerns about AA’s mental health makes me seethe if this was manipulated. Having a son who did actually attempt suicide and is permanently brain injured and needs 24 hr nursing care, I know the risk of suicide is a terrible thing, but I can’t help feel that some people use it as a weapon. If AA has in fact been enabled to carry on with their behaviour it will not help them in the long run.
I feel that even though they won against Raquel, the reputational damage will be substantial. I understand that Raquel is not the only student who has been left unsupported by Bristol Uni. She can certainly hold her head up high. I can only hope that AAs identity is revealed and he faces the consequences of his actions.
Is it a given that she will have to pay the defendant’s costs? Does the judge have some discretion here, particularly given the late disclosures and the protracted nature of the case as a result?
Costs can be reduced because of litigation misconduct so late disclosure won’t be ignored.
Did this brave and resourceful young woman not receive early advice that indicated the probable weak aspect of her claim, namely that the college owed her no duty in respect of the behaviour of AA and the Union?
I don’t think it’s that clear cut. I am certainly surprised the Judge was so clear that the Students Union has nothing to do with the University! They are clearly linked institutions and subject to many of the same rules. In my view.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but reading this I wonder if Raquel was well advised to take her case forward, given that the Uni is not legally responsible for the actions of the students union as an entity. It leaves a loophole that the SU can act maliciously posting inflammatory stuff on social media, which others then amplify, and hide behind its anonymity. It would have to go pretty far presumably for a case to be taken against the officers.
I hope Bristol University will not chase her for costs - end result feels like management consultancy on how best to deal with issues caused by the likes of Stonewall. Maybe other universities can chip in
If the judge accepted it as a novel case, for which no precedent existed nor analogous case law from which the law could incrementally develop, surely the judge erred by not resorting to Caparo on test for duty. This was confirmed in Robinson as the correct approach.
Because the Judge ruled the University had done what it needed to do and had no wider duty to Raquel. Although it was criticised for being so slow and not keeping her properly informed.
Why is AA anonymous?
Because AA's parents can afford expensive lawyers, is my best guess.
It doesn't seem right that AA can be anonymous.
As for Bristol Uni, the case is not a good advert for them.
Unbelievable what Raquel has been through.