Barrister sues vets claiming they banned her over her gender beliefs (2025)

JK Rowling's barrister friend is suing a vets' practice for £25,000 after she was banned as a client because of her 'rude' and 'unacceptable' behaviour.

Criminal defence lawyer Allison Bailey was 'expelled' from the client register of Palmerston Veterinary Group's practice in Walthamstow, east London, in January 2023 after complaints from staff.

One worker claimed 'she has never had to deal with such a rude client ever'.

But Ms Bailey denies being rude - and alleged the actual reason she was told not to return and to find another vet was due to her gender-critical activism.

She claims 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 compensation.

The high-profile barrister 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' rights of being gender-critical have been breached by the ban, which she blames on a senior staff member opposing her beliefs.

However, 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 she was discriminated against due to her belief that being female is an 'immutable biological fact'.

During her campaign she won the support of Harry Potter author JK Rowling, who praised her as 'a heroine to me and innumerable other feminists'.

In court documents, Ms Bailey's barrister Jeffrey Jupp says she claims she was 'directly discriminated against' by her vets due to beliefs which are protected by the 2010 Equality Act.

She added that 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 insists 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.

And just a month before her expulsion, she had sent the practice an emailed Christmas card featuring her other dog Jonty, said her barrister.

'She also 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,' he said.

'In response, the practice sent the claimant a condolence card and forget-me-nots to plant in memory of Poppy.'

But the relationship rapidly nosedived after she 'raised concerns by email about an interaction she had with a staff member on reception' in January 2023, said Mr Jupp.

'She sent a follow-up chasing email at 7.48pm 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 an email at 6.31 on January 19, 2023, 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".'

Mr Jupp said that subsequently, 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 a letter 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 we ask you to seek the services of another veterinary practice.'

Ms Bailey says she had visited the practice in relation to her two dogs around 120 times over the course of 13 years and 'estimates 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,' said her barrister.

'From time to time, she raised these issues, as any client is entitled to do so, and which were then resolved to her satisfaction.'

But lawyers for the Palmerston Practice say the decision to stop treating Ms Bailey's pets had nothing to do with her beliefs on gender, but was made after the barrister's actions triggered its 'zero tolerance policy' on behaviour towards staff.

Rebutting Ms Bailey's claims that her 13-year relationship with the practice was 'professional, friendly and largely unremarkable', defence barrister Gus Baker alleged: 'she repeatedly behaved in an unacceptable manner towards reception staff, which caused distress to those staff'.

Practice staff say that Ms Bailey was a 'difficult' client, highlighting an alleged key incident on January 19, 2023, when she went in to order worming and flea treatment for Jonty.

Mr Baker alleged Ms Bailey became 'very angry' when told the medication she wanted wasn't available, asking the practice 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'.

On top of that, 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'.

'On August 19, there is a note of the claimant being very rude to reception staff.'

There had been also been occasions when she had been asked to 'manage her communication skills,' while a team member had remarked that, 'she has never had to deal with such a rude client ever', he added.

The case reached court for a pre-trial hearing last week and is due to return for trial at a later date.