Good Law Project v EHRC: High Court upholds guidance on single-sex facilities post-For Women Scotland

The High Court has dismissed a challenge to guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) following the Supreme Court's judgement in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. The claim, brought by Good Law Project and three individuals, contested the EHRC's April 2025 interim guidance on single-sex facilities in workplaces and public services.

Mr Justice Swift ruled that the EHRC acted lawfully when publishing guidance stating that biological sex determines access to single-sex facilities under the Equality Act 2010. The guidance emerged after For Women Scotland established that "woman" in equality legislation means biological female, and "man" means biological male, regardless of gender recognition certificates.

The claimants advanced three grounds: that the guidance misstated the law; that publishing it breached the EHRC's statutory duties under sections 3, 8 and 9 of the Equality Act 2006; and that if correct, the legal position violated Convention rights. Good Law Project was found to lack standing, though the individual claimants' applications proceeded.

Workplace Regulations and service provision

The guidance addressed the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and provisions in the Equality Act 2010 concerning single-sex services. It stated that trans women (biological males) should not use women's facilities if those facilities are to remain genuinely single-sex, and vice versa for trans men.

The court rejected arguments that the 1992 Regulations merely required provision of physical facilities without governing their use. Swift J found that regulations 20-21 and 24 implicitly require separate facilities for men and women for reasons of propriety and conventional decency. Allowing trans-inclusive use would defeat the regulations' clear purpose.

On whether "woman" in the Regulations includes trans women with gender recognition certificates, the court applied section 9(3) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This provision displaces the general rule that acquired gender applies "for all purposes". The court found the Regulations' reference to "pregnant women" and the need for coherence with the Equality Act 2010 meant biological sex applies.

Accuracy and statutory duties

The guidance proved largely accurate. The court accepted that single-sex facilities cease to be single-sex if trans people use them contrary to biological sex, and that permitting trans women to use female facilities whilst excluding other biological males could constitute direct sex discrimination—though this remains fact-dependent.

Swift J emphasised that neither the Equality Act 2010 nor the Workplace Regulations provide comprehensive codes. They establish minimum requirements without prohibiting additional provision. Service providers and employers retain discretion to offer mixed-sex or single-use facilities alongside single-sex provision.

The court found no breach of the EHRC's duties to promote equality and human rights. The guidance appropriately focused on single-sex provision following For Women Scotland, included warnings about avoiding discrimination against trans people, and encouraged additional facilities where possible.

Human rights considerations

The Convention rights challenge failed. Even assuming prohibition of trans-inclusive facilities interfered with Article 8 rights to personal identity, such interference would be justifiable given competing rights and interests. The court noted that neither statute necessarily prevents trans-inclusive provision as additional facilities beyond minimum requirements.

The judgement clarifies that statutory guidance on single-sex facilities can lawfully reflect biological sex definitions whilst remaining compatible with protections against gender reassignment discrimination, provided appropriate additional provision is encouraged.

Copyright & permissions