New documents in GLP's case against EHRC

[theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw]

Just posted - amended case; defence; secretary of state's response:

https://goodlawproject.org/update/an-update-in-our-judicial-review-of-the-ehrcs-interim-guidance/

Two day hearing next month.

there is limited real world value in us

Mmmm hmmmm

That was incredibly childish of me and I apologise... it's just how I read it when I read it

Oh good lord.

Has anyone but us actually read or understood the SCJ? Are they downloading their answers from 12 year old aids?

Proportionate aim of invoking legal discrimination to provide single sex spaces at all.

Check. Such as for example, women having privacy, dignity and equality of access in a space where they are undressed. (Notes that there is no effort to argue that all changing spaces should be mixed sex because this is all accepted and obvious.)

Is that aim blown apart by letting other groups in? Such as men in women's changing facilities?

Check.

Does that leave men who don't want to change with men and can't use women's spaces because women have rights and needs too with an issue?

Check.

Solution?

Additional mixed sex spaces.

End of issue.

So, the third document is not from the secretary of state for work and pensions (which is an interested party) but from the minister for women and equalities.

GLP wishful thinking in seeing divergence between EHRC and the Minister. Both (and the SC) perfectly clear that trans people must not be unfairly disadvantaged, but this is not the same as identical treatment.

It's an application for judicial review not the JR itself, and J might just say no. But they've given it two days so might be worth observing if possible.

I love that the opposing parties are the Resistance.

I'm curious, will this force the new interim guidance to be publicly released? Doesn't this put Phillipson and Labour leadership generally in an increasingly difficult position? Why are they so determined to self-own. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to say that the SC forced their hand and that they're just following ordinary protocol by affirming the guidance issued by a conservative appointed EHRC.

This could have all be done and behind them if they had responded with alacrity. Now they're increasingly responsible for the aftermath at a time when their popularity is at record lows. What are they waiting for? Opinion polls to go even lower?

Phillipson is dragging her heels: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly24ggj4xzo

The Tories are claiming it's because she's in the running for deputy leader, and thinks it will be unpopular with the parliamentary labour party and labour party activists and torpedo her chances.

Update from EHRC:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/uk-supreme-court-ruling-meaning-sex-equality-act-our-work

The draft code was submitted to the Minister for Women and Equalities for approval on 4 September 2025. The next stage is for a draft code, as approved by her, to be laid before Parliament.
On 15 October 2025, we wrote to the minister to ask for:

• an update on that process
• the revocation of the 2011 version of the code, as it is now out of date in various respects

Given these important developments, we have removed the interim update from our website. Duty bearers should:

• continue to take specialist legal advice, as before, on their obligations under any relevant legislation, including the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998
• use the new code when it is approved by Parliament

(My emboldening.)

Can somebody explain the purpose of the judicial review.

From a cursory glance, much of the GLP's case seems to relate to matters that are not within the EHRC's remit, i.e. the law.

They're making several claims in the alternative:

The process is procedurally flawed. Remedy - change the procedure. Prolongs things.

The draft code misrepresents the meaning of the SC ruling, or goes beyond it. Remedy - rewrite the code.

The EA as interpreted by the ruling breaches the HRA. Remedy - a declaration of incompatibility under the HRA. This doesn't force HMG to amend the Act, but does open up the prospect of it losing to trans litigants in the ECtHR (which has no enforcement mechanism so 🤷‍♂️).

So the goal is just to kick the can down the road?

I don't think it's wholly cynical. They really do think they're in the right, and hope to force either a trans-friendly interpretation or an amendment to the law.

Pincer movement involving the Council of Europe:

https://tacc.org.uk/2025/10/14/press-release-submission-to-the-coe-directorate-general-of-human-rights-and-rule-of-law-regarding-the-uks-non-compliance-in-goodwin-v-uk/

Very balanced article.

do the BBC know the tide has turned?