Good Law Project v the EHRC in court today

[Another2Cats]

Tribunal Tweets are not live tweeting this but will be updating during breaks.

There does appear to be one person live tweeting though and I found her latest tweet interesting:

"The EHRC says the new ETA for the draft Code of Practice is the end of December and suggests that the wordings in the Interim Update will not be included in the draft Code."

https://bsky.app/profile/reactiveashley.bsky.social/post/3lv6he5d5422b

I'm sure that there will be a lot more coming out when TT start reporting

An update from
@MForstater
from the High Court permissions hearing on
@GoodLawProject
v
@EHRC
. No decision made, and no discussion of the substantive issues. The Good Law Project have been told to sort out their pleadings and resubmit them tomorrow with clarity about what the issues are. There will be a "rolled up" two day hearing in November.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1950524911782674538

What's the legalese for "I'm sad about it"?

Sad times? 😁

Weird. Sad times.

Doh! Too slow!

Does this mean what I think it does? “GLP sort yourself out, come up with a decent case by tomorrow or give up!”?

😂

Why am I not surprised🙁

As I understand it (I may be wrong) a "rolled up" hearing is one where both the initial permission is dealt with and then, if permission to proceed is given, then the actual, substantive hearing then takes place immediately afterwards.

So it's done in one hearing rather than, potentially, two separate hearings.

Winning again 🏆

Why can that person live tweet (or whatever the bluesky equivalent is), when Tribunal Tweets were denied permission?

@Another2Cats it was the ‘resubmit with clarity’ part that made me think there was an issue with GLP’s case.

They should not be live tweeting.

I agree with you, I think it may be down to GLP originally saying that one part of the guidance was wrong (about single sex toilets in workplaces) and the EHRC then admitting that was correct.

From that bsky account, she later went on to say:

"The EHRC is still seeking to have the claim struck out on the grounds that it has not been properly pleaded, arguing that changes to the Interim Update fixes everything and that GLP’s failure to specify the exact publication date are relevant."

Then in the next post says:

"Swift J says the changes are immaterial and notes that GLP’s challenge had a target, but unfortunately, it turned out to be a moving target. He also inquires whether there will be a future version of the Interim Update, but the EHRC could not provide an answer."

So it sounds like they do need to reword their claim in some way.

Would be really fucking funny if they turn up in November and start with the permission hearing and then the judge says, "No, sorry, this is bollocks, you can all piss off home" and four months' worth of work is wasted.

But on the whole I'd prefer to have tribunal tweets for the whole lot.

https://x.com/EHRC/status/1950559378240647209?t=DEq1wPBPiqDybVCsNkh4EQ&s=19

This is the direct link to Tribunal Tweets coverage. They were denied the right to live-Tweet because they should have applied in advance for permission, so they took down what was said and then issued it later:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WLq7U6vV-PQVMZUFsRwqMwieIlNGzsI1/view

It looks as if GLP got their paperwork and argument in a muddle and as a result were told to go away and get their act together. They have until 10 November, and the judge will decide in the light of the case submitted then whether to allow it and proceed immediately, with two days allotted for hearing submissions, or not to allow it. But I am not a lawyer and can't workout what it was that caused the issue: something about different versions of the same document.

What it looks like to me is:

• EHRC have produced a couple of different iterations of the draft guidance, aimed at clarifying language (there seems to have been some discussion about this - the judge says "let's not get into a theological argument")
• Whatever EHRC's draft guidance is, GLP doesn't like it and wants to apply for a bad court thingy
• Judge says, come back to me with some kind of coherent argument and we'll see

"...can't workout what it was that caused the issue"

The judge said at one point:

"...I’m not minded to allow your application in its present form but I am suggesting that you may resubmit."

He said this after hearing details of the first two grounds (as I understand them).

1. The interim guidance on mixed sex toilets in the workplace was wrong. The EHRC then later admitted this and changed their guidance on 21 July (or 5 June, it's unclear) .
2. The rights of trans people are compromised by eg having to use a mixed sex toilet rather than a transwoman being permitted to use the womens toilet, since they would be "outed".

I may have over simplified things there.

When they got onto ground 2 the judge said at one point:

"Barrister for GLP – and that means the disabled toilet will be offered, that will out the trans person and is an affront to their dignity"

"J – I’ve got your point, it strikes me as a point of grammar rather than a point of law"

He doesn't sound overly impressed.

So it looks as though the judge wasn't impressed by either argument but did allow them to go away and have another try at it.

Can someone, with more energy than me today, confirm the basics of this:

The Good Law Project complaint is that (?):

1. using disabled toilets (that’s the wrong term btw it’s accessible now) will be demeaning and out someone as being trans.
2. Therefore lockable mixed sex toilets should be always available
3. and also single sex toilets should be based on what a person wishes their sex to be.

My headache is getting worse so trying to make it make sense is difficult. Off to lie down.

Yes that seems to be the gist @Keeptoiletssafe

This seems another apt Lionel Hutz quote

Are they trying to argue that because it may not always be possible to ensure that mixed/unisex toilets are available in all circumstances, all single sex toilets should be accessible to TW/TM as they prefer?

Because that’s fucking stupid.

To their credit they have been consistent in their stupidity.

it strikes me as a point of grammar rather than a point of law

Wow. Judge sums up the whole of gender ideology in one sentence😁