The implications of this judgment are potentially huge. There have been a number of organisations who have profited from selling training that misrepresented the law. Is there an obligation on bodies that hold themselves out as expert voices to ensure they don’t present a campaigning position as legal fact?
This is much wider than AB and Stonewall. Potentially all diversity training providers will have to reassess their approach. Possibly also trade unions?
The converse point maybe how much of the reliance on the training providers was reasonable and should the purchaser of the training do their own research?
On the face of it you might argue that a barrister’s chambers would not have relied on Stonewall’s advice being legal experts themselves. However, in this specific case SW characterised AB’s comments as transphobic and GCC upheld their complaint whereas AB’s comments were expressions of a protected belief. Consequently, SW mischaracterisation of AB’s comments appears to have directly led to GCC’s discriminatory conduct. However, there may be an argument that GCC’s specialist knowledge breaks the chain of causation. That would not necessarily prevent a more general duty not to mislead if such misleading information leads to discrimination.
It’s a really interesting area of liability for the actions of others.