Haynes v Blackball Pool Federation is back on - this time at the High Court

[Another2Cats]

Again, I apologise for this being very long. TL;DR this looks to be the first case at the High Court which will consider the exclusion of trans-identifying men post FWS.

So, for some background, there was a case last year, just after FWS, concerning a trans-identifying man who had been banned from a women's pool competition organised by the English Blackball Pool Federation.

Back at the end of 2023, the Pool Federation changed their rules so that only women could play in women's competitions.

The trans-identifying man, Haynes, then brought a claim of direct discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment against the federation.

The trial took place during 2025 before the judgment in FWS was handed down. The court heard from several witnesses about whether pool was a gender-affected activity (Section 195(3) Equality Act) including Dr Emma Hilton - who is the interim chair of Sex Matters.

However, the FWS judgment came out before the County Court judge had made his judgment on the case and so the pool federation said that each side should make detailed written submissions about the effect of FWS on this case.

The judge agreed and the submissions for the pool federation were written by Sarah Crowther KC of Outer Temple Chambers and those for the trans-identifying man were written by Jane Russell KC. Some may recognise her name from the Sandie Peggie case (and other cases).

.

The judge decided that FWS was sufficient to decide the case in favour of the pool federation but, since he had heard detailed argument, he also set out his conclusions with regard to the sport exception (Section 195) and also about the provision of separate services (Schedule 3 para 28)

The court concluded that pool is a ‘gender-affected activity’ and that excluding those born as male from the female category is necessary to secure fair competition. The court also concluded that this was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

There is a link to the judgment here:

https://jrlevins.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/K01CT207-judgment-1-8-25-handed-down.pdf

.

Haynes has now been granted permission to appeal and has published the grounds of appeal on Haynes Instagram account. I've attached the images here. Haynes tried to get the case "leapfrogged" directly to the Court of Appeal but this was refused.

A brief summary of the grounds, which the judge who considered the application said were all arguable are as follows (personally, I don't they stand up at all, but this is the case he is putting forward):

1 There was no evidence that trans-identifying men had any competitive advantage over women. The judge failed to consider the "mental processes" of the federation and that they were significantly influenced in their decision to exclude trans-identifying men as they were in some way unfairly discriminatory.

2 In considering direct discrimination, the court applied the wrong comparator. Following Croft [Croft v Royal Mail [2003] EWCA Civ 1045] Haynes claims that the correct comparator in this case should be a woman rather than a man.

3 FWS, when applied to the facts of this case, does not comply with Article 8 and Article 14 of the ECHR and, in a claim by an individual, the ECHR applies, whereas it did not for the organisations claiming in FWS.

4 The Court failed to apply S195 Equality Act [the sport exemption] in a ECHR compliant manner. The pool federation did not show that it was necessary to exclude trans-identifying men for the reasons of safety or fair competition. Cue sports are precision sports thus not affected by power/sex. No explanation was given for changing from a testosterone testing system or handicap system.

5 Something about the court wrongly saying that another, professional, pool organisation would have refused Haynes permission to play in this federation's competitions

.

Frankly, I don't think any of those will really hold up. But it will be interesting to see what happens when it does get to court as this will be a High Court judgment rather than just a County Court judgment.

Croft is always dragged up and yet Croft is irrelevant.

jeez 🙄

"The judge failed to consider the "mental processes" of the federation and that they were significantly influenced in their decision to exclude trans-identifying men as they were in some way unfairly discriminatory.

I can't believe the judge thinks that's grounds for an appeal, it seems like one of the flimsiest excuse to grant leave to appeal there is.

My sympathy is with the Pool Federation, the fact that the courts are letting this pretendian appeal the sensible verdict, that is grounded in fact and law, must be a right headache for them.

If the High Court says that Croft is a dead letter, that will stop it being raised in Employment Tribunals ever again. That's worth the price of defending an appeal.

Is this any more than (financial) bullying of the pool federation? Presumably the bit about 'mental processes' means "they are a terrible bunch of transphobes"?

Isn't the Pool Federation a small group with limited funds?
So they must yet again defend themselves against the monstrous entitled ego of this man.

Hopefully they have a crowd funder.

Yes, it is. The rival Ultimate Pool set-up is a much wealthier affair.

"The judge failed to consider the "mental processes" of the federation and that they were significantly influenced in their decision to exclude trans-identifying men as they were in some way unfairly discriminatory.

My mental processes are struggling with this one. Can anyone translate for a 5 year old please

If a protected characteristic plays a non-trivial part in your reasoning to discriminate it is “because of” that protected characteristic and may be unlawful.

They are saying (again) HH’s transgender status was part of the reasoning for the decision to ban him and therefore unlawful. The judge never actually decided (they claim) whether HH having a protected characteristic influenced the decision, which (again, they say) was an error. If he had considered that question he would have decided that it did influence the decision.

the defense is presumably that he was banned because he’s a man, and therefore it was despite his transgender status, which played no part in the decision.

As MyAmpleSheep said above, if a significant part of the reason why the federation decided to insist on biological women only was because they had some dislike of trans-identifying people then that would be discrimination.

Haynes says that there was no evidence that trans-identifying men had any competitive advantage over women so therefore the only possible reason they could have introduced this rule is, essentially, that the federation were 'transphobic'.

However, what does confuse me is that in the county court judgment the judge went into a lot of detail following the expert evidence he heard on the competitive advantage that men have over women in English pool. In fact there were 139 paragraphs of the judgment (from 125 to 263) going over this.

Essentially, it seems to boil down to two things; the fact that men are stronger and so can achieve a better 'break shot' which is an important part of the game. And secondly, since men are taller they can also reach further over the table to make a shot which women would typically be unable to reach without using a rest.

Section 195(2) says that trans-identifying men can be excluded "if it is necessary to do so to secure in relation to the activity (a) fair competition"

In the county court case, Haynes really emphasised the word "necessary". The judge said that this word means "...something that is more than merely desirable, but may be less than utterly essential."

Haynes said in order to demonstrate necessity, that there must be evidence that they had already explored other alternatives eg requiring lowered testosterone levels or having a handicap but the federation hadn't done that.

The judge rejected that and said that there was no reasonable alternative way of achieving fair competition short of exclusion.

.

So, I am very confused as to why Haynes is claiming in the grounds of appeal that there is no evidence that trans-identifying men have a competitive advantage over women.

I watched this, and have so much sympathy for the Blackball Federation people. They came over as normal, decent people who were trying to do the right thing - volunteers, and acting on a tight budget, for a sport they love.

There didn't seem to be any animosity or non-acceptance towards HH. They constantly said they were just trying to be fair to the women who were played.

playing, not played!

I expect that because Haynes does not consider that trans-identifying men are men, he does not consider that the evidence showing that men have a competitive advantage over women is relevant to his situation.

There is that. Thanks.

I feel it unfair that minnows like amateur pool federations are left shelling out £££ to demonstrate points of law to the courts.

I hope there’s a fund or crowdfund to assist the EBPF. I’ll be glad to donate if it’s going to clarify the law on others’ behalf.

Said it before, but I hate the 'male advantage' argument. it's already conceding the point: why can't women have their own comp if they want it, be it pool or tiddley-winks? And actually, in my view, pool is a sport less affected than most. People talk about the break, but even then, it's more about technique than brute strength. At a non-elite level, most comps are open AFAICS. Comps I watch on Youtube, where I'd say the level is rather better than first division pool league, men, women, dammit, children too all play/ There's a boy, he's about 11 now, and he is an amazing talent, his elder brother was world U-15 champion, so it's in the blood. If you've good enough, you're in!

Saying all that, I agree with PP that Haynes' further legal sallies are very unlikely to get him anywhere.

I thought that Judge Swift had already dismissed the Croft argument in the High Court judgment for GLP v EHRC [47-50].

It's a bit long to post the whole thing here but he ends paragraph 50 by saying:

50. In For Women Scotland the only reference to the judgments in Croft was to the judgment of Jonathan Parker LJ, and there was no suggestion that in a claim of discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, the identity of the comparator could depend on whether the claimant had completed a relevant process for gender reassignment. It is also important that Croft pre-dates the existence of section 9(1) ofthe GRA 2004 and that it was not a case that concerned the meaning and effect of the 1992 Workplace Regulations. Taking these matters together, I do not consider that either Pill LJ’s reasoning or the notion that the relevant comparator for a claim of gender reassignment discrimination will change, can survive the reasoning in For Women
Scotland.

It’s not just physical though - although you can also argue that menstruation and pregnancy are drawbacks for any sport. You certainly can’t play pool to your usual standard if you’re noticeably pregnant.

There are other important disadvantages. How many teenage girls could go into a pool hall or pub and practice without unwelcome attention or being sidelined?

I think your second paragraph is the biggest factor. If as many girls as boys took up the game, the difference would be a lot less.

Thank you.

Did you read Naomi Cunningham's blog article discussing this? It's excellent.

Here's the relevant excerpt and link:

Stilitz then says that the judgment in For Women Scotland had thrown what had been a fairly stable status quo into disarray. It is true that “Stonewall Law” had created a widespread and complacent misapprehension that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment operated as an access all areas pass. That exact argument was made by counsel for the appellant in Croft (more on that later). It was rejected. The finding of the Court of Appeal, whatever else may be said about obiter comments in the judgment, was that protection from gender reassignment discrimination does not confer an entitlement to access single-sex spaces.

That depended on the unsupported claim that the correct comparator to determine whether a trans-identifying man had suffered gender reassignment discrimination was a “non-trans woman”. That claim should have been laid to rest long ago by the judgment of the High Court in Green, but the myth had continued to be widely promulgated, accepted and, to the detriment of women, applied.

Stilitz then says this:

At various points in the judgment, the Supreme Court was at pains to say they weren’t cutting, cutting back trans rights. They weren’t purporting to rule on wider questions, in particular about single-sex spaces. Interestingly, in an interview with The Times in September 2025, Lord Hodge was very keen to, to try and clarify that point. He said that, “The case before the court involving Scotland had nothing to do with how or where single-sex spaces should be created. These points weren’t argued before us, we were not there to decide points that were not put to us or were not raised in the course of argument.”

But there is an important difference between what Lord Hodge said the court wasn’t purporting to rule on — how or where single-sex spaces should be created — and what Stilitz interprets that as meaning — wider questions, in particular about single-sex spaces. The judgment does not say when single-sex spaces should be created, no doubt because the Act doesn’t concern itself with that question, and the judgment is about the interpretation of the Act. But it is shot through with consideration of what the various permissions in the Act to create single-sex spaces and services mean; the unworkability of those permissions if sex is taken to mean “certificated sex” is central to the court’s reasoning. It is bizarre to suggest, as Stilitz does, that the judgment has nothing to say about how single-sex services and spaces can lawfully be operated: the judgment is clear that when the EqA permits single-sex provision, what it permits is single-sex provision on the basis of actual sex, not certificated sex.

Croft v Royal Mail
Stilitz then touches on Croft v Royal Mail, which he says “held in that case was that once one reached a certain stage of gender reassignment, the claimant was entitled to be treated as a woman, was entitled to use the women’s toilets”.
That is not what the Court of Appeal held in Croft. What the court held was that there was nothing unlawful about the employer’s refusal to permit a trans-identifying man to use the women’s facilities in the workplace in circumstances where he had only just embarked on his “transition”. It is true that the judgment proceeds on the basis that there will be a certain “stage of transition” (evidently meaning hormone treatment and/or surgery) at which a trans-identifying man “becomes a woman and entitled to the same facilities as other women .”

The Court of Appeal in Croft was having to work out for itself, before the GRA 2004 had been passed, what the legal consequences of “transition” might be in terms of access to opposite-sex facilities. Its answer was that pure self-identification was in any event not sufficient, although it anticipated that some degree (which it did not attempt to define) of medical and/or surgical modification would ultimately entitle an individual to access opposite-sex facilities. Before any other court had to attempt a definition of the “stage” of transition that would be requisite, parliament enacted a comprehensive regime for gender recognition in the GRA 2004, which (foreshadowing the judgment of the ECtHR in AP, Garçon and Nicot v France (Application Nos 79885/12, 52471/13 and 52596/13) (unreported) 6 April 2017) created a regime for legal recognition of “transition” that was not dependent on any medical or surgical preconditions beyond a diagnosis of dysphoria. As was perhaps not widely appreciated at the time, but is now clear from FWS, that regime did not provide the holders of gender recognition certificates with any right of access to opposite-sex facilities.

How, in these circumstances, it can be suggested that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Croft is anything but a dead letter is a mystery.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2026/03/25/podcasting-and-partisanship/

There's a thread on it here on the board, which is where I found it. Very useful.

I think the case for sex differences impacting play in pool got a significant boost just before this judgement when the final of a women’s event saw two TiMs facing each other (they must have been gutted). Hopefully the appeals judge will be sane and will award costs against HH. The clarity of the IOC ruling should also help here. But yes, it really isn’t fair to the Blackball pool federation. I hope they reopen their crowdfunder.

The World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association updated their policy yesterday to female only in the women’s matches, yesterday. I wonder if this is going to affect this in anyway considering one of the arguments is :

Cue sports are precision sports thus not affected by power/sex.

If they're arguing that cue sports aren't affected by sex, then surely that's an argument against needing single sex competitions in cue sports at all? Not for having them (on what grounds?) and then allowing a select few males, and only those few, to identify into them. It doesn't add up.

Right. If it's established that there's no advantage for men then the whole separate women's category becomes unlawful discrimination against (all) men and vice versa, and the various sporting bodies would have to abandon any kind of separation by sex.

It's just like the TRA toilet arguments, where the women's facility shapeshifts from being necessary and effective to being futile and pointless.
"We have to use the Ladies' to be safe from transphobic men" but also "There's no point in keeping us out of the Ladies' because any man who wants to attack will just follow you in anyway".

Reported in the Telegraph

https://archive.ph/oI7uA

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/snooker/2026/04/03/snooker-bans-transgender-players-from-womens-game/

Although the headline is wrong.

Although the headline is wrong.

Yeah, they all do it, I said on a thread yesterday; the Guardian, the BBC, the Telegraph, the Mail...