Lisa Keogh seems to have lost her case. Does anyone have any more details?

[ChristinaXYZ]

twitter.com/keogh1992x/status/1604189432340533249

The newspaper pictured is behind a paywall. It would be interesting to know what the judge said.

Very sad to read that but - Scotland. What can anyone expect?

All the papers reporting it seem to be paywalled.

Have found this but it doesn't make sense newspaperscotland.mailplus.co.uk/data/1584/reader/reader.html

Sorry to hear this - sheriff? Is there a higher level to be taken to?

I see a troll is banging on about dsds on that thread. Idiot.

The decision is here (pdf download): www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2022scdun40.pdf

I haven't read it, and IADNAL in any case, but at a quick glance (para 60) it appears that "for a variety of reasons" Lisa's "averments are irrelevant".

From the start of the judgement (paras 2 and 3):

[2] These proceedings have generated some publicity. As this Judgement may be read by those who are not legally trained, it may be necessary to make two initial points. First, it only addresses the defender’s preliminary argument that the action should be dismissed without evidence being led. Second, a court may only sustain such an argument if an action is bound to fail, even assuming all the averments in a pursuer’s written pleadings are true (see e.g. Jamieson v Jamieson (1952) SC (HL) 44 at pp50 and 63).

[3] That assumption explains why I must not address two further issues which are clearly important to the pursuer - first, the truth of what happened during two courses which she undertook at the University and, second, the validity of certain gender critical beliefs which she expressed during them.

So it seems that the Sheriff agreed that: a) the university (defender)'s preliminary argument prevailed, b) that Lisa's action was bound to fail, and that c) therefore her evidence about the events themselves wasn't assessed at all because, even assuming that it was true, it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome.

Thank you @TheBiologyStupid

The gist of the judgement seems to be that Lisa did nothing wrong and was treated poorly but it was reasonable for the University to investigate, her complaints of harm are too vague and her argument is poorly constructedc(in law) so there was no prospect of proving direct discrimination if the case proceeded.

Thanks both. That's a shame.