Good law project v EHRC - granted oral hearing for permission to appeal

Were heading to the court of appeal seems a bit premature as they haven't yet been granted permission for the appeal.

This is an appeal against Interim guidance which seems a bit pointless now that it's been withdrawn and replaced by the final guidance

Of course it’s about toilets.
😣

So it's an oral hearing to seek permission to appeal?

So the win is that they haven't immediately thrown out the application for permission to appeal against a judgement on something that has since been replaced?

Isn't it always? They're obsessed with peeing in the Ladies'🙄

I am fully behind their desire to clarify whether 'separate but equal' services for men and women, outside the provisions of Schedule 3, are lawful.

Sounds a bit dodgy to me, but if that is how they want to spend their money they should certainly go ahead.

The problem is this doesn't really get them through the hoop of explaining why a mixed sex toilet isn't discriminatory.

Akua Reindorf has helpfully posted the decision on X - only the GLP could possibly spin this as “heading to the Court of Appeal” - they are heading to an oral hearing at which their arguments will fail and they will never get anywhere near the Court of Appeal.

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/2111082771305361912?s=46&t=X1ma7_QJJ_PDVp-SdExAEg

They rejected the Good Law Project's application but are allowing the three individuals to go forward so GLP is now supporting them apparently - you have to read way down the GLP statement to discover that their application was thrown out!

Some extracts...

Point 1.

"I am not currently persuaded that any of the grounds advanced has a real prospect of success".

"I have taken into account the letter from Leigh Day ... which suggests that the Guidance continued to have an impact notwithstanding its imminent replacement, but there is no supporting evidence for this"

Point 2.

"If, as they suggest, the alleged errors in the Guidance have been replicated in the Code, the correct corse is to challenge the Code rather than to engage in a debate about obsolete Guidance which the Code superseded."

Point 3.

"I have not directed expedition because the Guidance has been superseded and I see no good reason to afford this case priority."

Why are the GLP not just challenging the actual code as advised in the Order?

Yes @LadyHelenaThistle unfortunately for them (cos it costs them money), GLP’s supporters seem never to look behind its claims of great things. Any decent lawyer would be embarrassed to present this as a positive step.

On a more serious note, these proceedings are costing the taxpayer money and using court time which could be spent better on other cases. It is a shame that the judge decided to indulge the claimants rather than rejecting the request.

From GLP: ‘Forcing trans people into third spaces is not the answer. It’s discrimination – and it’s a breach of their human rights.’

But that’s what many people are using already. Accessible toilets are the third spaces. They meet the needs of those who can’t use standard single sex toilets.

Some people need Changing Places toilets. There are not enough of these. That’s more of a concern.

Campaign for Accessible toilets where there aren’t any, and Changing Places toilets, that meet current regulations - not enough of them do.

Maybe the goal is just to create uncertainty with ongoing litigation, whether or not it has any chance of success?

Thanks for posting this OP.

Have only had a skim read, but wondered if there is anything that indicates why the individuals are being allowed to put forward their case.

It may just be the Court saying to GLP we are fed up with your time wasting, but if "legitimate" individuals has a case we will listend!

Curious.

Sex Matters set the record straight!

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/good-law-project-refused-permission-to-appeal-in-ehrc-case/

Echr will rule against fws and all associated guidance eventually. The original Goodwin precedent in 2002 is you cannot out trans identified persons against their will. Obviously enforcing single sex spaces does this.

The reason nothing has happened is echr take years to process anything. Expect something around 2030 or 31.

Those (and it's a lot!) who were gender critical but also FBPE europhiles during last decade's culture war fad, will have their heads explode

Doesn't the glp have a record of their cases blowing up in their faces and confirming what the law says about the legality of single sex spaces?

Can I have a pint of what you have been drinking?

Privacy is a qualified right and the GRA both listed specific instances where sex is relevant and made it clear that the act did not override other legislation.

I am sorry that people have been misled on this issue, but no amount of legislation can change somebody’s sex and sex is sometimes relevant.

Was this the case where the judge said that the Workplace Regs should be interpreted on the basis of biological sex too? That's probably why.

Yes, Justice Swift was very clear in several places in his judgment that separate facilities for men and women, where required, mean exactly that: separate spaces for men and women, and he took his lead from the SC ruling that sex means biological sex.

If I'm reading him right, I think he was emphasising the importance of the intention behind laws and regulations - the SC ruling was clear that the intention behind EA2010 was to identify 'men' and 'women' by biological sex, and Swift does the same with Workplace regs - it would be irrational [my word!] to suggest that separate facilities for women may also allow some men:

35 The obvious albeit unspoken premise of regulation 20 is the provision of private space for each sex for reasons of conventional decency.

37 It is clear from this that the objective of regulation 20 is that men and women should use conveniences in separate rooms, not together in the same room.

38 [] provided to meet the obligation under regulation 20 should be trans-inclusive. Rather, that employer has adopted a policy or practice to allow some biological males to use the female lavatory. An employer would not comply with the obligation under regulation 20 (to make sufficient provision in separate rooms containing lavatories provided for men and women, respectively) if he permitted the room for women to be used by some men and vice versa. That would go against the purpose of the regulation.
[my emphasis]

Apart from some occasional weird stuff🙄, I think his ruling is very matter-of-fact about the interpretation of the terms 'man' and 'woman.' wherever they occur, not just in EA2010.
I have no idea what weight his judgment has in the Grand Scheme of Things, though...

…And of course the designs for separate sex toilet washrooms have always been consistently proscribed for mix sex use in uk standards, regulations and legislation. Except schools where it was a design free for all as they were exempt from 1992 legislation.

This is what is so contradictory about the GLP. The ‘sophisticated’ solution to KCSiE and toilets, according to the GLP, was to have every toilet adhering to regulation 20 in that it was in a separate individual room.

Jolyon is always going to have conflict between what individuals want. Design-wise, for both sexes to use the same toilets with regs and legislation, all roads lead to individual rooms. If his male individuals want to use the same as women it has to be individual rooms. That’s not best for economics, health, safety or queues. It actively discriminates against more people.