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.