The High Court has dismissed applications for judicial review challenging interim guidance issued by the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (EHRC) on the provision of single-sex services in relation to transgender rights.
In Good Law Project Limited and others v Commission for Equality and Human Rights, Mr Justice Swift ruled that the lead claimant, Good Law Project Limited, did not have sufficient standing to bring the claim. While acknowledging that the organisation had a sincere interest in the issues raised, the court held this did not satisfy the “sufficient interest” requirement under section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Three further claimants, anonymised as BOT, BNW and BBS, were granted permission to pursue judicial review. However, their claims were dismissed on all grounds.
The challenge concerned interim guidance published by the EHRC following the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in For Women Scotland. The guidance addressed the provision of single-sex toilets and changing facilities and interpreted the Equality Act 2010 as referring to “biological man” and “biological woman.”
The claimants argued that this interpretation was legally incorrect and that the EHRC had acted unlawfully in issuing the update.
Rejecting those arguments, Mr Justice Swift held that the interim guidance did no more than consider the application of relevant provisions within the Equality Act 2010 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The judge emphasised that public bodies are required to state the law accurately but are not obliged to provide a comprehensive statement covering every possible issue. Requiring full completeness, he noted, could result in guidance becoming impractical or unclear for its intended audience.
The court further concluded that the EHRC had acted lawfully in limiting its interim guidance to matters directly affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling, rather than addressing broader issues relating to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
The Good Law Project has confirmed its intention to appeal the decision. In a public statement, the organisation indicated that the EHRC is seeking costs of approximately £300,000, in addition to its own legal expenses.
The judgment marks a further development in ongoing legal debate surrounding the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 and the provision of single-sex services.
