How to cite the Supreme Court ruling on sex?

[HellonHeels]

So grateful for your help with this. As title says, how do I cite it?

I am redrafting our EDI policy which is littered with references to gender ID and actually leaves out the protected characteristic of Sex 🤯

I want to state that we recognise the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of 'sex' 'woman' and 'man'

mybib.com set to Harvard gave me this:

Supremecourt.uk. (2024). For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) - UK Supreme Court. [online] Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042.

In-text citation: (Supremecourt.uk, 2024)

There is a PDF of the judgment in the link https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042, which you could cite specifically if you are quoting the text of the judgment.

Is that you Isla?!

Sorry to be facetious but maybe ask your legal department, if you have one. Or whoever in your organisation is responsible for these things. Otherwise when asked at a tribunal "how did this policy come about?" you may find yourself answering "errr well I asked FWR".

We are firmly committed to upholding equality for all, and will not discriminate on the grounds of any Protected Characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 which are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Each of these Protected Characteristics is equally important to be protected and no protected group will be allowed to claim accommodations that disadvantage another protected group.

It is important to understand that, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2025, the meaning of "sex" is whether someone is biologically male or female, and this is a different Characteristic to Gender Reassignment. Our Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion policies will be clear and explicit about whether any given accommodation, adjustment, facility or opportunity is being provided on the basis of sex, in which case gender is not relevant, or whether it is on the basis of Gender, in which case sex is not relevant.

Yes, do check with your legal department. It is one thing to ask for help with a draft, but nothing should be enacted without the proper checks.

🤣🤣🤣 The current version could easily be her work.

Strictly speaking, it's an HR function but we are a smallish HE sector company and this document was "owned" by the provost (since retired)

It's impossible to make it worse than it currently is, but thank you for the sensible note of caution.

And thank you to all of you for the citation info, very much appreciated.

I would put it in the glossary so defining, sex, woman and man. Plus under the heading of Sex add in the SC has clarified it means biological sex.

I wouldn’t use the words “We recognise the Supreme Court ruling”, as that implies there is some sort of choice involved and it would be valid to not recognise the ruling. If making a specific statement about the definitions and and referencing the ruling I would say something more like ”The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of…”.

You can't offer any accommodation, facilities or opportunities based on gender as that would involve sex discrimination as gender is not a protected characteristic

The neutral citation is [2025] UKSC 16.

As a lawyer, I would cite it as: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16.