Latest news with #PalmerstonVeterinaryGroup
Telegraph
18 hours ago
- Telegraph
Vet banned lawyer over her gender-critical views
A gender-critical lawyer was banned by her vet because of her belief that there are only two biological sexes, a judge has said. Allison Bailey, a retired criminal defence barrister and co-founder of the LGB Alliance, sued Palmerston Veterinary Group's surgery in Walthamstow, north-east London, after she was 'expelled' from the practice. The practice claimed she was thrown out for being rude to staff, but the judge rejected the argument, saying she had faced 'unlawful discrimination' because of her beliefs. Ms Bailey said it was the first case of its kind, showing the courts will stand up for women denied goods and services if they do not believe trans women are women. 'This judgment shows that it is unlawful to deny services to people who believe that sex is binary, biological, immutable, and of vital importance,' she said. '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.' Ms Bailey has demanded £25,000 compensation. The amount of damages will be decided later. The surgery claimed the reason Ms Bailey was told not to return was because of its 'zero-tolerance policy' on abusive behaviour towards staff, after she shouted at a practitioner when she was told that one of her pets was overweight. But Ms Bailey argued in court that she was expelled because her gender-critical views were opposed by Dr Liz Munro, a former staff member at the veterinary practice. Judge Andrew Holmes said that whilst Ms Bailey 'can be seen by others as being direct to the point of rudeness,' the vet's practice had failed to prove that it's staff were unaware of her views or her friendship with outspoken gender critic Rowling, and that those views played no part in the move to ban her. 'There is strong evidence that Ms Bailey's gender-critical beliefs were known within the practice,' he said. 'I do not accept that Ms Munro was unaware of Ms Bailey's friendship with JK Rowling. 'Dr Munro revealed clearly that if she did not regard Ms Bailey as a bigot, it was only by a hair's breadth.' 'On balance, it is likely that Dr Munro knew about Ms Bailey's gender critical beliefs before she was involved in taking the decision to terminate.' Ms Bailey, who is a lesbian, said: 'I was a client of Palmerston Vets for 13 years when they expelled me. I never went to the vet to talk about issues around sex and gender. 'I would not have dreamed of doing so – they raised it with me, and made me the subject of internal gossip as a result. I was given no warning and no indication that I might be expelled. 'As many gender-critical women will know, this is all too often the case where anyone expresses a view in support of the rights of women and LGB people that conflicts with the views of trans rights activists and an authoritarian LGBTQ+ community and lobby.' Promotion of 'trans activist material' During the case, Ms Bailey's barrister Akua Reindorf KC told the court the practice's 'culture' included promotion of 'trans activist material', saying Dr Munro had shared information to staff members about how to address trans clients by their preferred pronouns and other preferred language use. In the witness box, Dr Munro replied: 'I don't believe that I hold strong views. Am I some sort of radical pro-trans activist? No. 'I believe I hold views that many people in society have and the feeling behind this was one of kindness, inclusivity and treating people as you wish to be treated.' Dr Munro agreed with the barrister that she found gender-critical views 'objectionable', adding: 'It's not a position I agree with, but I don't know if I'd say someone was a bigot – maybe I would.' Gender-critical beliefs 'worthy of respect' Maya Forstater, chief executive of human rights charity Sex Matters, said: 'This is the first case to come to court of discrimination based on gender-critical beliefs in relation to goods and services. We know that many people and organisations have experienced this. 'We can expect to see more of these kinds of cases unless service providers recognise that gender-critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society.' A spokesman for Linnaeus, which owns Palmerston Veterinary Group, said: 'Our focus is on providing the best possible care for pets in a welcoming environment, and supporting our teams.'
Daily Mail
18 hours ago
- Daily Mail
JK Rowling's barrister friend wins payout after she complained that vet's practice banned her over her gender-critical beliefs
A barrister friend of JK Rowling has won a payout after proving she was banned from a vets for her ' gender critical' views. High profile former barrister Allison Bailey was banned from using her local vets' practice over allegations she was 'rude' to staff. She was 'expelled' from the client register of Palmerston Veterinary Group's practice in Walthamstow, in January 2023 on grounds of her 'unacceptable' behaviour. The vet's receptionist complained that Ms Bailey's 'aggressive and intimidating' conduct had left her in tears. However, Ms Bailey denied being rude and sued, claiming the real reason she was told not to return and to find another vet was her gender-critical beliefs. She claimed there was no justification for the vets' 'deregistering' her, nor any basis for complaints about her alleged overbearing conduct Ms Bailey took Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd, trading as Palmerston Veterinary Group, to court, seeking £25,000 in compensation. Her lawsuit was based on claims her 'protected characteristic' rights of having a gender-critical belief were breached by the ban, which she blamed on former staff member Dr Liz Munro opposing her beliefs. Today, Judge Andrew Holmes ruled in Ms Bailey's favour at Central London County Court, handing her victory, with the amount due in damages to be assessed later. He said that whilst Ms Bailey 'can be seen by others as being direct to the point of rudeness,' the vets' practice had failed to prove that their staff were unaware of her views or her friendship with outspoken gender critic JK Rowling, and that those views played no part in the move to ban her. 'There is strong evidence that Ms Bailey's gender critical beliefs were known within the practice,' he said. 'I do not accept that Ms Munro was unaware of Ms Bailey's friendship with JK Rowling. 'Dr Munro revealed clearly that if she did not regard Ms Bailey as a bigot, it was only by a hair's breadth. 'It then falls to the defendant to show that the decision was not taken on the prohibited ground and that the prohibited ground played no part in the decision. The defendant fails.' During the trial, Ms Bailey had insisted she had a good relationship with the practice throughout the 13 years they treated her two dogs, Poppy and Jonty. The practice fought her claim saying the reason she was told not to come back was because her actions had triggered its 'zero tolerance policy' on abusive behaviour towards staff. Ms Bailey's barrister Akua Reindorf KC told the court the practice's 'culture' included promotion of 'trans activist material,' saying for example that they displayed a Pride flag The barrister also pointed out that Dr Munro had shared information to staff members about how to address trans clients by their preferred pronouns and other preferred language use. In the witness box, Dr Munro replied: 'I felt I was showing something that would be useful. I would never expect anybody to keep their views to themselves. 'I don't believe that I hold strong views. Am I some sort of radical pro-trans activist? No. 'I believe I hold views which many people in society have and the feeling behind this was one of kindness, inclusivity and treating people as you wish to be treated.' Dr Munro agreed with the barrister that she found gender-critical views 'objectionable,' adding: 'It's not a position I agree with, but I don't know if I'd say someone was a bigot - maybe I would.' Giving his ruling today, Judge Holmes said: 'A "no further treatment letter" was sent to Ms Bailey by post on January 26 and was received by her on January 28. 'It was sent in the name of Dr Liz Munro. 'The central issue in this case is the degree to which, if at all, the decision to terminate Ms Bailey's relationship with the practice was because of her gender critical beliefs. 'In my judgment, there is evidence that Ms Bailey did not behave well towards the staff in the practice. 'The incident on January 18, 2023, is perhaps the clearest evidence. 'Ms Bailey is not violent or abusive, but she can be seen by others as being direct to the point of rudeness. 'The interaction on January 18, 2023, was clearly unpleasant, but it was not violent. 'If termination was a last resort, save where there is violence, then one would have expected there to have been a warning. 'The practice was under no legal obligation to conduct some sort of disciplinary process. There was no contractual requirement to do so. 'Provided the termination was not for a discriminatory reason, the practice was entitled to terminate the provision of its services with or without cause. '[However] there is strong evidence that Ms Bailey's gender critical beliefs were known within the practice.' The judge said that 'gossip ... that Ms Bailey was a friend of J.K. Rowling' had 'spread round the practice quickly'. 'I do not accept evidence from any witness that they were unaware of this,' he said. 'Ms Rowling is one of the most famous people in the country. It is to me inconceivable that people would not talk about that in what is a relatively small business. 'On balance, it is likely that Dr Munro knew about Ms Bailey's gender critical beliefs before she was involved in taking the decision to terminate.' In relation to the trans inclusive post Dr Munro had shared with staff after it appeared on her social media feed, the judge said 'for such a post to have appeared on Dr Munro's feed, one would anticipate that she must have shown some interest in pride or trans issues'. 'Social media works by the use of algorithms,' he continued. 'Social media, in trying to keep the user engaged and thereby generating more revenue, targets the user with posts that it has calculated that the user will be interested in. 'Dr Munro must have been engaged with posts on LGBTQ+ issues for the guide to language document to have appeared on her feed such that she could repost it and use it in the team meeting. 'I was also unconvinced by Dr Munro's evidence on her views concerning the sex/gender debate...[from] the answers she gave when asked about the detail of the guide to language document, it was clear on which side of the sex/gender debate Dr Munro is. 'Just how strongly she feels was demonstrated when she hesitated over whether she regarded Ms Bailey's views as bigoted. One would have anticipated a simple denial whilst saying they were not views she shared. Instead of which Dr Munro revealed clearly that if she did not regard Ms Bailey as a bigot, it was only by a hair's breadth. 'I do not accept that Ms Munro was unaware of Ms Bailey's friendship with JK Rowling. 'I accept that there is evidence that Ms Bailey could be difficult and aggressive with staff. '[But] I am satisfied that Ms Bailey has proved, on the balance of probabilities, facts from which I can conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the practice has committed an act of unlawful discrimination. 'It then falls to the defendant to show that the decision was not taken on the prohibited ground and that the prohibited ground played no part in the decision. The defendant fails. '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.' The amount of damages Ms Bailey is due and who pays the costs of the case will be decided at a later date.
Express Tribune
19-06-2025
- Express Tribune
JK Rowling's barrister friend sues vet clinic after being banned
Retired criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey is suing a veterinary practice for £25,000, alleging she was banned due to her gender-critical beliefs. Bailey, a friend of author JK Rowling,has filed a discrimination claim against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd after she was deregistered from its Palmerston Veterinary Group in Walthamstow in January 2023. Bailey asserts the ban violated her rights under the Equality Act 2010, which protects belief-based characteristics, and claims the decision was influenced by a former employee's disapproval of her views. However, the practice contends she was removed due to repeated instances of rude and aggressive behaviour toward staff ratrher any prejudice on her views which seem to be aligned with Rowling. The dispute centres on an incident where Bailey reportedly became angry when informed the practice lacked flea and worming medication for her dog. Staff allege she reacted confrontationally, with internal emails describing her as 'absolutely vile' and 'intimidating.' One staff member said she was the rudest client they had ever encountered. Bailey denies ever shouting or losing her temper and insists she maintained a respectful relationship with the clinic over 13 years and 120 visits. She said she had even received a condolence card and flower seeds from the practice following the death of her dog, Poppy. In court, Bailey's legal team, led by Akua Reindorf KC, argued that the evidence against her was sparse and unreliable. They highlighted the lack of documentation or formal warnings from staff and criticised the clinic for not presenting key witnesses. Bailey's lawyers insist the burden of proof lies with the clinic to demonstrate that the decision was not discriminatory. Defence barrister Gus Baker rejected claims of discrimination, stating that the ban stemmed from how Bailey was perceived during stressful situations and not from her beliefs. He said the decision was triggered by a pattern of behaviour that violated the practice's zero-tolerance policy. The hearing, which follows Bailey's previous legal battle against LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall and her co-founding of the LGB Alliance, continues in court this week.
Daily Mail
19-06-2025
- Daily Mail
JK Rowling's barrister friend says she was banned by her vet for her gender-critical beliefs - but clinic staff say it was because she was rude when told dog was too fat
A friend and supporter of JK Rowling has claimed she was banned by a vet from their practice due to her gender critical beliefs - but staff say the real reason was she became 'rude and difficult' after being told her dog was too fat. Retired criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey is suing for £25,000 after she was 'expelled' from Palmerston Veterinary Group's practice Walthamstow, northeast London in January 2023 on grounds of her 'unacceptable' behaviour. She denies that she 'lost her temper and shouted', but one employee at the practice said she had 'never had to deal with such a rude client ever'. Internal emails said staff were 'scared' of the former barrister and avoided dealing with her 'whenever possible'. The ban followed an incident in which it is claimed she was rude to a receptionist when told the surgery did not currently have flea and worming medication for her dog, at which point she became 'very angry'. Ms Bailey claims there was no justification for the ban and no basis to complaints about her alleged overbearing conduct towards staff - and is now taking legal action against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd for compensation. In court this week, she refuted allegations that one of the vets at the practice had 'warned' a receptionist that she 'could be very intimidating and quite scary' and denied there was 'an incident' with the same vet during which she lost her temper and shouted at him for saying that her dog was 'overweight'. Ms Bailey insists she had a good relationship with the practice throughout the 13 years they treated her two dogs, Poppy and Jonty, and had received a condolence card with flower seeds from them after Poppy had to be put down. Her lawsuit is based on claims her 'protected characteristic' - having gender-critical beliefs - have been breached by the ban, which she blames on former staff member Dr Liz Munro. But the practice is fighting her claim and says the reason she was told not to come back was because her actions had triggered its 'zero tolerance policy' on abusive behaviour towards staff. In court documents, her lawyers claim Ms Bailey was 'directly discriminated against' by the practice due to beliefs which are protected by the 2010 Equality Act, and says an internal memo which branded her 'absolutely vile' was probably prompted by disapproval of her beliefs, rather than concerns about her conduct towards staff. Ms Bailey claims she was a long-standing client who had always treated staff with respect, praising the practice in 2020 for the support she received leading up to her Airedale Terrier, Poppy, being put down. Her barrister Akua Reindorf KC played two recordings of phone calls between her and vet staff during which there was no obvious argument or conflict. In the witness box giving evidence, Ms Bailey denied claims by the practice that one of its vets, Neil Hampson, had warned a receptionist that she could be 'very intimidating and quite scary'. She also denied there had been 'an incident where you lost your temper and shouted at him for saying that your dog was overweight'. 'Absolutely not,' she told the judge. 'Neither of my dogs could be described as overweight. I've never shouted or screamed at anyone in my veterinary practice.' She also refuted claims of another incident involving her dog Jonty where she was said to have become angry 'after a request for information from a pet hotel (when) Jonty's entire medicals records were sent'. 'They were hugely apologetic. I deny I was aggressive or sarcastic,' she said. In written arguments lodged with the court, Gus Baker, for the vets' practice, told the judge: 'In this case, the claimant alleges that she was deregistered as a patient from the defendant's veterinary practice... because of her gender-critical beliefs. This is denied. 'It is surprising the allegation has ever been made in circumstances in which there is no documentary evidence to support the assertion the claimant makes. 'The claimant's case is that she was deregistered on the basis that she was unpleasant to members of staff working for the practice, culminating in an interaction of 18 January 2023. 'The claimant does not believe she was unpleasant to staff, including during the 18 January interaction. Accordingly, she draws the inference that there must be animus against her for another reason and that reason must be her gender-critical beliefs. 'The obvious problem with this logic is that it rests on the claimant being able to reliably judge how other people perceive her. 'It is no doubt true that being de-registered from a veterinary practice because of behaviour is likely to be a distressing experience for anyone. 'It is understandable that the claimant has sought to find, for herself, a different explanation rather than accept that the way she was perceived by reception staff because of the way she interacted with them was rude, unpleasant and even 'vile'. 'The claimant's case is that the preponderance of contemporaneous evidence of her rudeness can only be explained by a conspiracy against her because of her protected beliefs. 'There is a simpler explanation... the way she sees herself, perhaps in times of stress regarding the health of her pets, is not how other people always perceive her.' Ms Reindorf KC, in her arguments for Ms Bailey, criticised the practice for failing to call key witnesses to give live evidence, adding: 'No documentary evidence is adduced of the claimant having been 'warned' by Mr Hampson about her communication style, nor of Mr Hampson having asked her to make an apology'. She criticised 'the paucity and dubious character of the documentary evidence relating to the claimant's alleged poor conduct,' adding: 'No other client of the defendant has been expelled in remotely similar circumstances'. She told the judge that it is for the vets' practice to prove that they did not discriminate against Ms Bailey's protected gender-critical characteristic, rather than for her to prove that they did. 'The claimant has shifted the burden of proof and... the defendant cannot satisfy the court that it did not do the act alleged or that the act was in no sense whatsoever because of the claimant's gender-critical belief,' she said. At a previous hearing, the court was told the ban resulted after an incident in January 2023 when she went in to order worming and flea treatment for Jonty. Linnaeus' lawyers say Ms Bailey became 'very angry' when told that the medication she wanted wasn't available, asking the receptionist 'what she was going to do about it'. Records from Jonty's notes referred to Ms Bailey also allegedly stating, 'when I ask you to do something for me, I expect it to be done'. Lawyers for the practice insist the volatile behaviour was 'not a one-off', citing previous conduct which led to one receptionist branding her 'very rude'. During an exchange of emails with the practice, Ms Bailey had stated she was thinking of leaving because she was dissatisfied, and an internal email within the practice emerged, written the following day, which read: 'I don't know what happened in this particular time, but this woman is absolutely vile. 'She is one of the worst Walthamstow clients, she is very rude and treats everyone really badly at every interaction. Everyone at the practice is scared of her and avoids dealing with her whenever possible.' Ms Bailey received a letter 'de-registering' her as a client on January 28, followed by another reading: 'a satisfactory professional relationship between a client and his/her veterinary surgeon must be founded on the basis of mutual trust and confidence. 'It is clear that there is no longer such a basis to our relationship. Professional services will no longer be provided for your animals and ask you to seek the services of another veterinary practice.' Ms Bailey's lawyers say she had visited the practice in relation to her two dogs around 120 times over 13 years and estimate there were 'a handful of times, around half a dozen times, when issues emerged regarding aspects of the service which the claimant at the time felt were not up to the usual standard. 'From time to time, she raised these issues, as any client is entitled to do so, and which were then resolved to her satisfaction.' Ms Bailey was previously involved in a high-profile legal clash with her barristers' chambers and the LGBTQ+ rights group, Stonewall, over claims that she was discriminated against due to her belief that being female is an 'immutable biological fact'. She founded the LGB Alliance and accused Stonewall of 'trying to silence and vilify women like me who have genuine concerns about how its approach to trans inclusivity conflicts with the protections, safety and dignity of women, girls, children and LGB people.' It was during that campaign she won the support of JK Rowling, who praised her as 'a heroine to me and innumerable other feminists'.
Telegraph
16-04-2025
- Telegraph
‘I was banned from vets over gender-critical views'
A barrister claimed she was banned from using a veterinary practice over her gender-critical activism. Allison Bailey, a criminal defence lawyer, was 'expelled' from the client register of Palmerston Veterinary Group's practice in Walthamstow, London, in January 2023, despite the business having treated her two dogs for over a decade. Her deregistration came after complaints over her 'unacceptable behaviour', including one staffer who claimed 'she [had] never had to deal with such a rude client ever'. But Ms Bailey, who is a friend of JK Rowling, has denied being rude and claims the real reason she was told not to return and to find another vet was her gender-critical activism. She has said there was no justification for the vets 'deregistering' her, nor any basis for claims about her alleged overbearing conduct towards staff, and is now suing Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd, trading as Palmerston Veterinary Group, for £25,000 in compensation. She insisted she had a good relationship with the practice throughout the 13 years they treated her two dogs, Poppy and Jonty, and had received a condolence card with flower seeds from them after Poppy had to be put down. Her lawsuit is based on claims her 'protected characteristic' rights of being gender-critical have been breached by the ban, which she has blamed on a senior staff member opposing her beliefs. But the practice is fighting her claim and says the reason she was told not to come back was because her actions had triggered its 'zero tolerance policy' on behaviour towards staff. Ms Bailey was previously involved in a high-profile legal clash with her barristers' chambers and the gay rights group Stonewall, over claims that she was discriminated against due to her belief that being female is an 'immutable biological fact', and during her campaign she won the support of Rowling, who praised her as 'a heroine to me and innumerable other feminists'. In court documents from Central London County Court, Jeffrey Jupp, Ms Bailey's barrister, said she claims she was 'directly discriminated against' by her vets because of her beliefs that are protected by the 2010 Equality Act, and said an internal memo that branded her 'absolutely vile' was probably prompted by disapproval of her beliefs, rather than concerns about her conduct towards staff. Mr Jupp said: 'She praised the practice in 2020 for the support she received in relation to both the illness and subsequent euthanising of her late dog, Poppy, at the practice, sending it an email and a photograph of Poppy when she was a puppy, commenting that Poppy and her surviving dog Jonty were always happy to visit the practice because everyone was so kind.' 'In response, the practice sent the claimant a condolence card and forget-me-nots to plant in memory of Poppy.' But Mr Jupp said relations nosedived after she 'raised concerns by email about an interaction she had with a staff member on reception' in January 2023. 'She sent a follow-up chasing email... as she had not had the courtesy of a response,' he said. 'By the end of the following day, she had still not received a reply. '[In a later email] she raised the issue of this lack of response and, having complimented the service she had previously received, and in light of the lack of response, stated, 'I've approached Goddard's with a view to transferring vets after over 11 years at Wyatt Lane'.' 'Absolutely vile' Mr Jupp said that an internal email within the practice emerged the following day, saying: 'I don't know what happened in this particular time, but this woman is absolutely vile. 'She is one of the worst Walthamstow clients; she is very rude and treats everyone really badly at every interaction. Everyone at the practice is scared of her and avoids dealing with her whenever possible.' Lawyers for the Palmerston Practice have claimed the decision to stop treating Ms Bailey's pets had nothing to do with her beliefs on gender. Gus Baker, the defence barrister, said that '[Ms Bailey] repeatedly behaved in an unacceptable manner towards reception staff, which caused distress to those staff'. The case reached court for a pre-trial hearing last week and is due to return for trial at a later date.
