Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission re GLP High Court Case

[IwantToRetire]

“The High Court has rejected a legal challenge brought by the Good Law Project, relating to the interim update we published soon after the Supreme Court's judgment on the definition of 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010.

“We welcome the court’s conclusion that the interim update was lawful and the EHRC did not act in breach of its statutory duties.

“We issued the interim update in response to a high level of demand immediately after the Supreme Court's ruling. We were concerned that organisations and individuals could be subject to misinformation and misrepresentation of the judgment and its consequences. That might have led to them failing to comply with the law: adopting or maintaining discriminatory policies or practices, to the detriment of those the law is supposed to protect.

“As Britain’s equality regulator, we uphold and enforce the Equality Act. This is the second time the way we have done our duty in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling has been tested in the courts. Both times our actions have been found to be lawful.

“It’s our job to champion everyone’s rights under the Equality Act, including those with the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. A shared and correct understanding of the law is essential to that endeavour.

“We note that the claimants may seek permission to appeal. We will consider any further legal proceedings carefully, in line with our statutory duties.”

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/comment-judicial-review-brought-good-law-project

Pity she didn't call on the government to 'follow the process' and put the guidance before parliament.

Can the interim guidance be reinstated now?

An excellent point.

I assume that the GLP judgment means that both the content and the fact that it was published were found to have been legal.

I was previously concerned on the latter point. It seemed odd that it was originally called "interim guidance", then an "interim update" until finally it disappeared altogether. Circumstancially, this suggested that they might have been legally wrong in issuing it (i.e. procedurally).

However, from the GLP judgment, it appears that this wasn't the case and that everything was as it should be.

So until the actual guidance is released, surely we can have it back. Especially as the forthcoming guidance apparently only covers service providers. So the interim guidance, in its clear simplicity, should be there until all other replacement guidance is written - because it replaces guidance that the EHRC has stated is legally incorrect. They could even add a note to it suggesting that any fool decision maker who feels confused and won't act until all final guidance has been released is welcome to act as a test case in court.

Following the obfuscation from the GLP about the judgment, I can well imagine some TRA-aligned organisations saying that they can't decide what to do as, in their situation, both staff members and service users access the same facilities e.g. a pub with one set of women's toilets and one set of men's, which are used by both pub staff and customers. According to the GLP, this is now effectively an impossible situation. Obviously that's bollocks but there will be organisations that believe them, many of whom will presumably still insist on waiting for guidance before changing their (illegal) policies that allow anyone to use whichever toilets "align with their gender identity".

It's a pity that Phillipson is giving another impression by saying the guidance effectively doesn't count in employment settings

I think that it is worth remembering that if the UK Government had done its job, this court case would never have happened because the "interim" guidelines as drawn up by the EHRC would have been put before Parliament and (if) passed become the Guidelines.

I am not sure if Phillipson has made a statement about the High Court rejecting her submission, but it is not very convincing (again) the Labour seems to be on the wrong side of the law.

And think that the quite low key response from the EHRC maybe part of the presentation that MAS is this less "provocative" Chair than Lady Falkner. Not that I think she was. She was great and stood up for women's sex based rights.

But it seems to be part of current politics, politicians being "kind" to Trump instead of saying you dont know what your are talking about (IMO) and now delegated representatives having to say to Labour well it just might be that you haven't taken or followed the corrent legal advice.

What more can the EHRC do? Maybe they should take the Government to Court. If GLP can constantly raise money for clearly unlike court cases, maybe we could help raise money for the EHRC saying the Government is blocking them from doing their job.

And in doing so helping people break the law, and providing an example of how people dont need to follow legal rulings, because the Government hasn't in this instance!

BonfireLady has already covered this but there still seems to be confusion in this thread about two completely different EHRC publications, so I will have a go too.

Clarification of two EHRC documents - they are different, not the same thing:

1. EHRC Interim Update - 25 April 2025, updated 23 June 2025

• "An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment,"
• this covers workplaces, among other things
• it was unsuccessfully challenged by the Good Law Project
• it was not sent to Bridget Phillipson
• it was withdrawn by the EHRC with the confusing explanation that this was because the EHRC had issued the updated Code of Practice below

2. Draft Updated Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations

• this does not cover workplaces
• this is what Bridget Phillipson is sitting on

The EHRC has caused enormous confusion by randomly referring to both the "interim update" and the Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations (what Bridget Phillipson is sitting on) as "guidance" and as "updates".

+++++++++++++++

NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD

However, the revised/updated Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations will become "Statutory Guidance" (ie. issued under Statute) when it is approved by Parliament.

This page lists relevant EHRC documents wrt to the revised/updated Draft Code of Practice:

UK Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act: our work
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

+++++++++++++++

THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD

At the moment, the links on that page to these pages are missing and they might or might not reappear:

• "An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment," 25 April 2025
• "Clarification on workplace facilities added to interim update", 23 June 2025

That page also does not include a link to the subject of this thread, "Comment on judicial review brought by Good Law Project" 13 February 2026 by Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, EHRC Chair. Maybe the page will be updated this week to include it? It definitely refers to the work of the EHRC in relation to the Supreme Court ruling.

The easiest way to access information in and about the "Interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment" , which covers workplaces, but is NOT the document that Bridget Phillipson is sitting on, is probably via this Sex Matters page (where "interim guidance" and "interim update" refer to the same thing):

13th February 2026
High Court rules: EHRC guidance lawful

The High Court has dismissed a legal challenge from the Good Law Project (GLP) and three anonymous claimants against the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)’s interim guidance on single-sex services published last year.

Sex Matters intervened in support of the EHRC.

Mr Justice Swift endorsed the interim update that the EHRC published in April last year as an accurate statement of the law for employers and service providers and ruled that “transsexual persons” under the Equality Act have no right to use opposite-sex toilets or changing rooms.

The EHRC interim update

The Supreme Court ruled that in the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), ‘sex’ means biological sex. This means that, under the Act:

• A ‘woman’ is a biological woman or girl (a person born female)
• A ‘man’ is a biological man or boy (a person born male)
• If somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the Act, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
• A trans woman is a biological man
• A trans man is a biological woman

This judgment has implications for many organisations, including:

• workplaces
• services that are open to the public, such as hospitals, shops, restaurants, leisure facilities, refuges and counselling services
• sporting bodies
• schools
• associations (groups or clubs of more than 25 people which have rules of membership)

Full article:
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/high-court-rules-ehrc-guidance-lawful/

+++++++++++++++

NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD

This is where to find information about the OTHER document, ie. the one that Bridget Phillipson is sitting on, the "Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations", which does NOT cover workplaces:

Guidance
Code of practice for services, public functions and associations: consultation 2025
Published: 20 May 2025
Last updated: 15 October 2025

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-services-public-functions-and-associations

The Draft Code does not seem to be available as a single document (at least I could not find a copy of it on the EHRC website). Instead, that page links to changes to the Code (which does not cover workplaces):

On the following pages, you can read the parts of the code that we consulted on that are new or have changed. These include changes to definitions and explanations, and new examples:

• Code of practice consultation 2025: changes that apply across the code

Updated legal definition of sex We have updated the definition of 'legal sex' throughout the code of practice. Our previous definition explained that: ‘Legal sex is the sex that was recorded at your birth or the sex you have acquired by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).’ Following the UK Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland, this definition is no longer accurate, because a GRC does not change your legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. We have therefore updated this definition throughout the code to be: ‘Legal sex is the sex that was recorded at your birth.’

• Code of practice consultation 2025: changes to chapter 2

Chapter 2 explains who has rights under Part 3 (services and public functions) and Part 7 (associations) of the Equality Act 2010.

• Code of practice consultation 2025: changes to chapter 4

Chapter 4 explains what the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) says about direct discrimination in the provision of services, the exercise of public functions and associations for all the protected characteristics covered by this code of practice.

• Code of practice consultation 2025: changes to chapter 5

Chapter 5 is about indirect discrimination and ‘objective justification’. Objective justification applies to indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, positive action and to some of the exceptions permitted by the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) (s.19).

• Code of practice consultation 2025: changes to chapter 8

Chapter 8 explains the general test for harassment under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). It also explains the provisions on harassment related to a relevant protected characteristic, the provisions on sexual harassment and the provisions on less favourable treatment of people who reject or submit to harassment.

• Code of practice consultation 2025: changes to chapter 12

Chapter 12 explains how the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) (Part 7) applies to associations. It explains what an association is and what is unlawful under the Act in relation to an association’s members, associates, guests, those seeking to be members or guests, former members, former associates and former guests. It also explains the duty of an association to make reasonable adjustments.

• Code of practice consultation 2025: changes to chapter 13

The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) contains exceptions which permit conduct that would otherwise be unlawful under the Act in the provision of services, the exercise of public functions and the activities of associations. Chapter 13 explains those exceptions.

Really useful clarification, thank you.

Seconded, I'll copy and paste it somewhere for future reference.

So why is Phillipson sitting on the one she didn't go to court about? Is she intending to go to court to challenge that one? is that even possible?

Ignore me I'm just rambling, I'm sure I'll find out in due course. 😁

I don’t think anyone knows what she’s doing. Avoiding dealing with it as long as she can, I imagine.

(Actual footage of EHRC web monkey)

What a nightmare the EHRC website is!

Something I have just noticed in my previous post that might cause confusion now or in the future . . .

What I posted:

(START)

NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD

However, the revised/updated Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations will become "Statutory Guidance" (ie. issued under Statute) when it is approved by Parliament.

This page lists relevant EHRC documents wrt to the revised/updated Draft Code of Practice:

UK Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act: our work
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

(END)

That link 👆

looks like it should be wrong but it works correctly.

It used to be the URL for page detailing the Interim Update (the subject of this thread).

Now it automatically redirects to the page linked below

👇

which (for the moment at least) is almost all about the Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations (which what Bridget Phillipson is sitting on):

UK Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act: our work
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/uk-supreme-court-ruling-meaning-sex-equality-act-our-work

++++++++++++

That redirect is a lazy, cack-handed way to deal with removal of the Interim Update.

What legitimate justification could there be for the EHRC to make it appear as if it had never issued interim updated guidance relevant to workplaces?

The explanation given by the EHRC is that it was withdrawn completely because the "Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations" had been sent to the Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, for her consideration.

That not only makes no sense but it has contributed to misunderstandings and confusion about the scope of the Code of Practice.

Someone has already put in a Freedom of Information Request to the EHRC asking why it was withdrawn and for a copy of the Interim Update (referring to it as "Interim Trans Advice"). In reply, the EHRC effectively reiterated the reason given on the EHRC website by posting the URL to the page "UK Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act: our work".

They did provide a copy of the Interim Update though as a PDF which can be viewed and downloaded:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/interim_trans_advice#incoming-3212713

Looking at other FOIRs to the EHRC, they are very reluctant to disclose who made specific decisions about anything so I doubt they would disclose that information. However, perhaps under the new Chair they might be prepared to explain their reasoning in a bit more detail.

Thank you for this. Copying and pasting the whole text of the interim update from the FOI, for reference:

The consultation on proposed changes to our code of practice for services, public
functions and associations (Code of Practice)
, resulting from the UK Supreme Court
judgment, closed on 30 June 2025. We are reviewing the consultation responses
received and will produce a revised Code of Practice in due course.
The Code of Practice will provide formal guidance to service providers, public bodies
and associations in relation to their duties under the Equality Act 2010 and how to put
them into practice. It will have legal standing under the Equality Act 2006.
While our work on revising the Code of Practice is ongoing, duty-bearers should take
appropriate legal advice where necessary in relation to all aspects of compliance with
the Equality Act 2010 and other relevant law. This includes the matters referred to in
this interim update, which is for information only.
Please keep checking our website for further updates about the revised Code of
Practice, which will provide formal guidance for duty-bearers.Following the UK Supreme Court judgment in F o r W ome n S c otla n d v T h e S c ott i s h M i n i s te rs, we are
also working to update our statutory and non-statutory guidance.
We know that many people have questions about the judgment and what it means for them. Our
updated guidance will provide further clarity. While this work is ongoing, this update is intended to
highlight the main consequences of the judgment. Employers and other duty-bearers must follow
the law and should take appropriate specialist legal advice where necessary.
Key information
The Supreme Court ruled that in the Equality Act 2010 (the Act)
,
‘sex’ means biological sex.
This means that, under the Act:
A ‘woman’ is a biological woman or girl (a person born female)
A ‘man’ is a biological man or boy (a person born male)
If somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the Act, even if they
have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
A trans woman is a biological man
A trans man is a biological woman
This judgment has implications for many organisations, including:
workplaces
services that are open to the public, such as hospitals, shops, restaurants, leisure facilities,
refuges and counselling services
sporting bodies
schools
associations (groups or clubs of more than 25 people which have rules of membership)
In relation to workplaces, requirements are set out in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare)
Regulations 1992. These require suitable and sufficient facilities to be provided including toilets and
sometimes changing facilities and showers. Toilets, showers and changing facilities may be mixed-
sex where they are in a separate room lockable from the inside. Where changing facilities are
required under the regulations, and where it is necessary for reasons of propriety, there must be
separate facilities for men and women or separate use of those facilities such as separate lockable
rooms.
It is not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on a single-sex basis or
to have single-sex facilities such as toilets. These can be single-sex if it is a proportionate means of
achieving a legitimate aim and they meet other conditions in the Act. However, it could be indirect
sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex.
In workplaces and services that are open to the public where separate single-sex facilities are
lawfully provided:
trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans
men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean
that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sexin some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to
use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the
women’s facilities
however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in
a position where there are no facilities for them to use
where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-
sex facilities should be provided
There are rules about when competitive sports can be single-sex, which we intend to address
separately in due course.
Schools in England and Wales must provide separate single-sex toilets for boys and girls over the
age of 8. It is also compulsory for them to provide single-sex changing facilities for boys and girls
over the age of 11. The law in Scotland requires schools, irrespective of pupils' age, to provide
separate toilet facilities for boys and for girls. Toilet cubicles are required to be partitioned and have
lockable doors.
Pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls’ toilet or
changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted
to use the boys’ toilet or changing facilities. Suitable alternative provisions may be required.
Membership of an association of 25 or more people can be limited to men only or women only and
can be limited to people who each have two protected characteristics. It can be, for example, for
gay men only or lesbian women only. A women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit
trans women (biological men)
, and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans
men (biological women).
Our work to update our guidance
Our updated guidance will be available in due course. We are working at pace to incorporate the
implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
We aim to provide the updated Code of Practice to the UK government by summer, for ministerial
approval ahead of the full draft Code being laid in Parliament after the summer recess.
The Code will support service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties
under the Equality Act and put them into practice.
We are currently reviewing sections of the draft Code of Practice which need updating. Our public
consultation is open until 30 June. It will help us to understand how the practical implications of
this judgment may be best reflected in the updated guidance. The Supreme Court made the legal
position clear, so we will not be seeking views on those legal aspects.
The consultation launched in mid-May and is open for 6 weeks, until 30 June. We are seeking views
from affected stakeholders.
In the meantime, we will continue to regulate and enforce the Equality Act 2010, ensuring protection
for all protected characteristics including those of sex, gender reassignment and sexual orientation.
24 June 2025:
Added detail to section on facilities in workplaces to clarify what is required under the
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.6 June 2025:
Updated timing for when the Code of Practice will be submitted to the UK government
for ministerial approval
Updated information about the Code of Practice consultation period and added
closing date for the consultation survey
30 April 2025:
Added detail about toilet provision for schools in Scotland

I believe that, as she did with the guidance for schools, she has plans to water it down and hopes that if she leaves it long enough it will reduce the outcry.

Mary Ann Stephenson is a good egg. She may have a more emollient personal style than Baroness Falkner (praise be upon her), but MAS is steeped in the women's sector and understands very well what the issues are.

It is not her fault that the draft guidance is currently warming Bridget's bum rather than being laid before the House.

I'm not sure how she can water it down much without immediately bringing legal challenge and getting more helpful clarification as last week; the law was made pretty clear. She knows by now that she's got a women's movement and the activist movement both fully on this, barristers primed and ready to go and a lot of experience now of these cases, and anything put out will be gone through with a toothcomb and will be put through court. I can see why it's difficult to face up to, but this is moving from sensible care to gutless and how ever long she puts it off, the answer is still eventually going to have to be to say a clear no to men using women's single sex spaces. She's just going to have to say it, mean it and withstand the tantrums. (If the govt had had the guts to do this ten years ago, as we've so often said, it would have been far easier to have set boundaries, and far kinder too to the men involved. Not to mention the body count of women and girls harmed on the way.)

She's pussyfooting just as much with the SEND reform white paper, which she's also sitting on to the point of ridiculousness. She needs to either do the job now or Starmer needs to put someone else in there who has the nerve.

She needs to either do the job now or Starmer needs to put someone else in there who has the nerve.

I agree, but I can see the problem with that.

I agree that reluctance to face TRA tantrums is very likely to be a factor in her behaviour but I think she has an eye on moving up the ladder politically and so, until Starmer either reinforces his position as leader of Labour or resigns, I think Phillipson will sit on this EHRC CoP in case releasing it might harm her career.

Helen Joyce wrote a great article on the death of No Debate and has this paragraph which slightly encouraged me until I remembered the complete shamelessness of our priggish Labour ministers when it comes to public opinion and the law:

"Even the bad news — the government’s refusal to reinstate single sex spaces as required by the Supreme Court; employment tribunal judges whose absurd rulings on men in women’s workplace toilets and changing rooms will require lengthy and expensive appeals to overturn — is being widely reported.

The more ordinary people know about it all, the less they like it. The biggest difficulty in galvanising public opinion in the era of No Debate was that most people were oblivious."

Here's the link for any who want to have a read of the full piece:
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/february-2026/the-no-debate-dodos/

Its strange with Labour going through so many U turns, quite often when told they have got something legally wrong - again.

But somehow when its about women's sex based rights they just carry on putting it on the back burner.

And as they have now been told they cant cancel any of the local elections they will be going into over drive about that, and so even less hope they will in any prioritise this.

And sadly without a lot, and it would have to be a lot, of media coverage about why they aren't following custom and practice, not likely to on their agenda for maybe 3 months.

I am sure there will be a lot of clamour to shunt a woman in as the first Labour PM after all the recent, ongoing and still-to-break sex scandals. Northern also preferred.

Rayner will probably still be out of the running due to her brush with HMRC and tax fancy-footwork that advantaged her but disadvantaged her disabled son.

Starmer stuck on repeat with, "My dad was a toolmaker" was bad enough but with Phillipson we have the nauseating prospect of a whole litany of northern, working class sound-bites exploiting her childhood with "My Mam Claire" to look forward to.

Much is made of Phillipson's claims to have been bullied and ostracised at primary school due to her mother living on benefits in council housing.

In a 2024 Facebook post Phillipson recalls last meeting her old Primary School Head Teacher, Tom Grieveson, in 1995. Apparently he was Head at JFK Primary:

https://www.facebook.com/bridgetphillipson/posts/pfbid02HCVEXbtCCjPXNuURwt3U6QJGtH62noZf6UTh1ZQxz96vMqzGokauTFQPoCBiRL9kl?comment_id=603765718831356

Given the dire employment situation in Washington (Sunderland) at that time, it is likely that about 30% of the children at JFK Primary would have been living in council housing with parents on benefits. So why would Bridget have stood out and been bullied and ostracised for that reason? It doesn't make sense.

All of this back-story is designed to obscure the fact that Phillipson is a careerist politician, child of a "Labour Party family" and beneficiary of the patronage of the Labour Movement machine. She joined the Labour Party she was 15 and the machine steered her into office along the now familiar path of University to Labour Council-funded "work experiences" that would look good on her CV, first for selection and then for election as a Labour Party parliamentary candidate.

Bridget popped straight out of University with a History degree and into a job with Sunderland Council for two years as a Policy Advisor. Then she was appointed by her Labour Party member mum as Manager of her mum's DV charity, giving Bridget another three years to "groom the constituency".

Not my terminology BTW, that is the language used in the Labour Party to describe this part of swift progress up the political careerist escalator, in Bridget's case powered as per the usual formula by support from multiple unions.

Not sure why but EHRC has posted this today (or rather thursday 6th)

She doesn't say anything new. Is this a form of applying pressure on the Government but in a laid back non confrontational manner?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/795923642974688

I found I could play the video without being logged into facebook. I just closed the sign in box.

Thank you for posting that 🙏

I had a scout around and it is on X and YouTube as well:

https://x.com/EHRC/status/2029945096817496087

The High Court judgement on the legal challenge brought by the Good Law Project

"Our Chair, Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson discusses the High Court's findings in a recent legal challenge brought by the Good Law Project. Read our summary of the judgment"
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/high-court-judgment-summary-good-law-project-v-equality-and-human-rights-commission

I think she’s attempting to clear up the rampant misinformation being spread about the court case, not least by the GLP itself.

Thanks to those above for the links, the information is there for anybody to find, so there no excuse for any lama drama's not to find it, their repetition of misinformation is getting tedious.

Looking at you GLP 👀

MAS does calm and non confrontational very well. She doesn't flat out say that firefighters have been called to Jolyon's underwear drawer, but she points us inevitably to that conclusion.