Good Law Project suing the EHRC and Bridget Phillipson - letter before action

[OhBuggerandArse]

Sorry if this has already been shared - here are the links to their letter and statement. Looking forward to the Mumsnet analysis :-)

https://goodlawproject.org/were-bringing-a-legal-challenge-to-the-ehrcs-interim-update

https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Letter-to-the-Equality-and-Human-Rights-Commission-16-May-2025_Redacted.pdf

Irwin Mitchell are known for taking personal injury / compensation cases.
Suspect they see numerous opportunities to take cases against all the idiot organisations who have written sad letters about poor trans people and indicated they may defy the SC judgment.

There's a good discussion on this thread - essentially it will be like shooting fish in a barrel if a woman takes a case against her employer for discrimination because of lack of single sex facilities and the employer's sent one of these letters to their staff:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5337814-very-clear-article-on-legal-position-for-retailers-and-single-sex-facilities

I'm utterly mortified to have to declare this post wrong, because Schedule 3 does not apply to workplace toilets. The case law mentioned by Irwin Mitchell (it's sex discrimination not to provide single-sex toilets at work) hopefully leads us to much the same conclusion, given that sex-discrimination law is governed by the Act.

I agree that almost everyone at the time who wasn't an activist wouldn't have seen it as an issue.

What's amazing to me, going back and looking at the GRA debates in Hansard, is that Norman Tebbit of all people anticipated most of the problems we're now aware of. Setting off from a different starting point than us, he saw it was a bad bill and argued doggedly against it through all the Lords stages.

Anyway, this is quite fascinating: Gender Recognition Bill Hl - Hansard - UK Parliament

Lord Filkin, for the government, putting a rather different line of argumentation than current Labour politicians would.

Lord Winston giving a rather mystical speech about how sex is an incredibly complex thing that nobody really understands (he's improved a lot since).

Lord Tebbit, specifically on the precondition point, taking the line that although he's opposed in principle to the bill, he also believes it inhumane to force transsexuals to submit to surgery in order to benefit from the bill's provisions.

It's a lot more illuminating than the Commons debate, where the responsible minister (hello David Lammy) obviously didn't understand the legislation he was piloting through the House, and most MPs who spoke were just virtue signalling.

Yes, I totally understand why they would do that.

DH and I are doing it old-school though. DH is making a sex discrimination claim as a litigant in person. (We're currently waiting for a reply to the letter before action).

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5333650-an-update-to-the-wi-announcement-thread-my-dh-just-got-a-reply-to-his-application-to-join-them

Oh bravo to your DH @Another2Cats and brava to you.

He's the Helen Webberley of the legal profession.

@MyAmpleSheep things have moved on in this thread but I agree with your summation of the GLP argument:

1. that the EHRC guidance directs people to do something unlawful because it overreaches the effect of the FWS judgment and/or
2. the Workplace Regulations are subject to the GRA 2004, not the Equality Act.

I think both arguments are poor. Poor because it’s clear in the GRA itself that a GRC’s effect of changing someone’s sex is rendered null when it makes another piece of legislation (and here it’s crucial that it could be an Act or a regulation) unworkable or incoherent. This paves the way for the interpretation of the EA in FWS to prevail in the application of the Workplace Regs (in situations where not all toilets are of the single self-contained room type, you must offer single sex WCs).

The GLP either don’t understand the GRA themselves or they are willfully ignoring that pesky provision.

GLP continues to wins fans.

Simon Myerson KC 🎗️
The wisest and most eminent retired Supreme Court Judge, who specialised in Equality Act work at the Bar, before their appointment to the bench in 2001 & who regularly canvasses the views of the 25 most eminent silks, just said to me, “What the hell is Maugham on?”
Honest guv.

Lawyers don't like it when you say they are all evil and our legal system is corrupt. Not a great move when you are pursuing court cases against the legal system. If you are doing publicity stunts with no intention of winning though...

Lawyers don't like it when you say they are all evil and our legal system is corrupt.

Just occurred to me - is the whole "dinner party" thing from Maugham because he's bitter that no-one in the profession wants to come to his dinner parties any more?

I can imagine he absolutely revelled in being in "good standing" in that evil and corrupt legal system, so he's spiralled into a feedback loop of resentment.

Thank you for this summary. I have tried 3 times to extract meaning but there is so much extraneous detail that it defies understanding for the average person! One of the problems is that they don't have one single killer argument and that they are going for a pick and mix mud-slinging attempt in the hope that something sticks? Or it is just a publicity stunt?

Anyway here is my attempt - which I think gets to the same place as you but with a poorer understanding of the law?!

I got as far as understanding that their letter is a pre-action Judicial Review to challenge the EHRC Interim Update guidance. So it is not legal action appealing the Supreme Court judgment. This doesn't seem to be clearly understood over on Reddit. And if a JR is actually launched it would be on process, not outcome, so even if the EHRC process is found to be flawed, that may not affect their actual advice.

So far so good - no legal action on a procedural matter at the EHRC.

Next it seems they are claiming that part of the procedural problem relates to the consultation not including workplace toilets (and only covering services and associations)?

The letter only deals with GRC holders in workplace toilets. They haven't spelled that out to all the people chipping in to the fundraiser but I suppose they consider this a wedge issue so we can go around the genital inspection/toilet police loop again.

The GLP request seems to boil down to

1. asking the Secretary of State for Women & Equalities to make the EHRC reverse/re-think their interim guidance - ie withdraw it, OR
2. if the Secretary of State agrees that the law has been interpreted correctly that they make arrangements to amend the law to allow trans people to access their facilities of choice.

The sections of law they seem to suggest might need amending by Parliament (if applicable) would be:

• the single sex provisions of the EA and/or
• that tricky section 9 of the GRA "the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender" and/or
• the HSE's requirement for separate toilets to be provided for men and women on the basis that the regs don't define male or female.

I can't imagine the Secretary of State will want to open up any of these laws.

Numerically unisex third spaces meets the needs of the largest combined subgroup - 75% of all trans people are non binary plus trans men. It is not in the TRA's interests for this figure to be widely discussed, but if they open up the Workplace Regs that is what will happen...

Is it just me or could this be an own goal?

Bit hesitant to ask this question but, will the ECtHR be able to override UK law🥴

Given the track record I’d suggest an “own goal” is definitely within the bounds of possibility.

Yes & No. The ECtHR can find the UK is in breach of the convention but they then refer the case back to the UK. The UK may then pass law to remedy the situation or may choose to ignore the ruling.

Knotty it's not you, it's an own goal.

The GLP are endeavouring to centre themselves by claiming to have the magic key to make everything better again for the tra. (Also, there's money to be made).

Superficial legal bullshit might fool those of little brain over on the likes of Reddit. On FWR the likes of yourself and others, are pretty good at taking claims like this apart, and discovering there isn't anything of substance there at all.

None of the legal experts who actually are competent in this area, are taken in by the waffle. In MN terms, I think it's reasonable to wonder if someone at the GLP is on glue.

And people with agendas don't ?

Much as I detest "AI" (because it isn't), AI or not, there is is always incumbent on the reader to ensure the veracity of what they are being fed. Which - sorry peeps - does mean you need some basic knowledge to begin with.

I really really don't want to be thinking about poking a hole in any kind of person tbh. 😬

"...you need some basic knowledge to begin with."

And then you need to actually apply it.

There was a case last month in the High Court where a barrister had used AI to come up with a list of fake cases - including one that purported to be a Court of Appeal case.

A local authority was opposing a homelessness claim. They lost the claim but were successful in getting a wasted costs order against the claimant's solicitors and barrister.

The barrister had come up with five fake cases.

There's an interesting article about it here:

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/judge-condemns-lawyers-who-produced-fake-citations-to-court

and a link to the judgment here

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1040.html

It is sinking in then that this is not a reasonable or rational movement.

The issue will be one that this lobby's leaders and loudest voices will never be able to understand or accept, which is that this is not all and only about them. Other people have rights too, and these legislations have to equally protect those other groups. This lobby does not see others or regard their needs and issues as of any importance.

However any court looking at this legislation will have to.

Lawyers don't like it when you say they are all evil and our legal system is corrupt.

Which doesn't make it not true though.

Recognising that other people's legal protections would have to be abandoned to permit men the absolute freedom and primacy they wish was not 'corruption' though. Or evil.

To identify that those other groups' rights and equalities would necessarily be lost and yet still try to argue that this group of men's primacy was all that mattered would have been a good deal more corrupt and questionable.

Good Law Project are claiming Victory in its attempt to clear the good name of Earth Mother par excellence Camilla Batmanghelidjh and Kids Company

https://goodlawproject.org/vindicated-kids-company-wins-landmark-legal-battle-against-the-charity-commission/

Even though the actual report was upheld and a part of the report was felt to be unfair

https://news.sky.com/story/part-of-charity-commission-report-on-collapsed-kids-company-was-extremely-unfair-judge-says-13371543

No

they can find UK law is not compliant with the convention but they can’t change UK law

@Lalgarh thanks for posting and yet again the fox killer seems to be happy to ignore the actual words used in the judgement! The Charity Commission is also claiming victory (although acknowledging they need to re-write two paragraphs of their report). The judge has yet to decide costs but understand he suggested it was difficult to see who was ‘the winner’.

If you read the actual judgment it's very obviously not a win for GLP but just a couple of nit picking points about two paragraphs in the Charity Commission report.

Conclusion
149. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, I allow the judicial review with respect to the two paragraphs in the Report which I have found to be irrational: (i) the failure to include within the Report the findings of Falk J with respect to the scrutiny by the trustees of expenditure on the ‘top 25’ clients (paragraph 45); and (ii) the implication at paragraph 51 of the Report that if the trustees had not made a decision to operate with a low level of reserves they might have been able to save the charity from insolvency (paragraph 51).
150. The remainder of the challenge is dismissed.

assets.caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/d-915b8f8a-a6ef-45ec-b1e8-65a74d349848/d-915b8f8a-a6ef-45ec-b1e8-65a74d349848.pdf

Did GLP fund that judicial review, or just support it in the broader sense?