The dispute
Ms Bailey intends to sue Stonewall, the UK’s leading LGBT+ charity, and Garden Court Chambers for discrimination.
Her claim arises from an investigation launched after she publicly criticised Stonewall’s approach to transgender rights. Bailey, a long‑standing campaigner for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights, argues that the investigation was discriminatory and designed to silence her gender‑critical views.
Her criticisms have been labelled transphobic by some activists, while she maintains that her concerns relate to safeguarding female identity and protecting sex‑based rights.
LGB versus LGBT
The case sits within a wider debate about LGB and LGBT activism.
LGB campaigners argue that biological sex is observed at birth and should not be replaced by gender identity. They believe that certain gender ideologies risk undermining same‑sex attraction and lesbian and gay rights. This position has led to accusations of transphobia and significant tension between LGB and LGBT groups.
The LGB Alliance, a breakaway organisation formed by former Stonewall supporters including Allison Bailey, was created in response to concerns that Stonewall prioritises transgender issues at the expense of lesbian and gay rights.
Allison Bailey’s activism
Bailey is a feminist, lesbian and lifelong advocate for racial equality and LGB rights.
She has been outspoken in her criticism of what she calls “new trans activism”, arguing that replacing sex with gender identity can create serious issues for women’s rights. She rejects the suggestion that women with gender‑critical beliefs should remain silent, and she highlights the use of the term “TERF” as an example of attempts to dismiss or intimidate women who raise concerns.
Her views echo recent public debates, including the controversy surrounding J.K. Rowling’s comments on sex and gender. Bailey argues that labelling all critical voices as transphobic is a political tactic that must be resisted.
The investigation
Following the launch of the LGB Alliance in October 2019, Bailey publicly supported the group on Twitter. Garden Court Chambers asked her to remove references to chambers from her profile and later announced that she was under investigation. Stonewall reportedly warned that its relationship with chambers would be damaged if action was not taken.
After submitting Subject Access Requests, Bailey discovered extensive documentation about her, including four lever‑arch files of correspondence, meetings, consultations and discussions involving Stonewall and chambers. She argues that she was unaware of the extent of these communications and that the investigation amounted to victimisation.
The discrimination claim
Bailey asserts that lesbian, gay and bisexual people should be free to campaign for their rights without permission from Stonewall or any other organisation. Her claim centres on indirect discrimination based on her gender‑critical beliefs. She argues that she has been subjected to victimisation because she raised concerns about Stonewall’s influence and actions.
Her case has been lodged at the Employment Tribunal. She is represented by Peter Daly of Slater and Gordon Lawyers and Aileen McColgan KC.
The CrowdJustice campaign
Bailey launched a CrowdJustice page to fund her legal action. The page raised £48,000 within six hours. CrowdJustice then removed the page following complaints about its content, stating that it needed to be reviewed under the platform’s terms. After review, the page was reinstated with amendments, although Bailey says these changes were made without her knowledge or consent.
CrowdJustice confirmed that the £60,050 raised will be transferred to Bailey’s solicitors and used entirely for legal fees. However, the platform declined to allow her to increase her fundraising target, a departure from its usual practice.
The legal significance
The case raises important questions about whether restricting gender‑critical beliefs constitutes discrimination. It also highlights tensions between LGB and LGBT activism, particularly when organisations disagree on the boundaries of rights‑based campaigning.
Bailey argues that Stonewall attempted to intimidate and silence her. Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers deny any wrongdoing. Chambers stated that it “strongly refutes any claim that we have acted unlawfully or in any way colluded with Stonewall” and considers the allegations groundless.
The case is likely to provide significant clarification on the extent to which gender‑critical beliefs are protected and how far organisations may go in responding to internal dissent.
Conclusion
Allison Bailey’s claim against Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers is set to become a landmark case in the debate over gender‑critical beliefs, free speech and discrimination. While opinions remain deeply divided, the rapid success of her crowdfunding campaign demonstrates strong public interest and support.
As the case progresses, it will be closely watched for its implications across employment law, equality law and the future of LGBT and LGB activism.
Not sure how close you are to qualifying?
The path-fit quiz reads your situation and shows you which routes you are ready for, and exactly what to do next. Four minutes, no account needed to start.
Check your readiness