https://x.com/peterdaly/status/2054597795059736753?s=20
Some more from the judgement:
148 The Supreme Court did not decide whether or not that same definition of 'men' and 'women' applies to the Workplace Regulations. However, this issue was considered by the High Court case of R on the application of the Good Law Project and others v EHRC [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin). In that case, the claimants sought judicial review of the legality of the EHRC's guidance (first published on EHRC's website on 25 April 2025 as part of an interim update and later removed from the website on 15 October 2025) (the "Interim Update"). The Interim Update concerned the Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland that was handed down on 16 April 2025.
149 Mr Justice Swift concluded at paragraph 45 of his judgment that:
"Given the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland on the meaning of "woman" and "man" in the EA 2010 [the Equality Act 2010], any contrary reading of the same words in the 1992 Workplace Regulations would make the application of paragraph 2 of schedule 22 to the EA 2010 certainly less coherent, and likely impossible.
150 Mr Justice Swift noted in relation to the Act and the Workplace Regulations:
"26 It is wrong to believe that either the EA 2010 or the 1992 Workplace Regulations provides a comprehensive code on when or in what form lavatories or other facilities must be provided or who may or must use them. The parts of the EA 2010 considered in the Interim Update concerned when it would be permissible for a service provider to make a single-sex provision. It does not exclude or prohibit other provision. Similarly, although the 1992 Workplace Regulations do prescribe a requirement for "suitable and sufficient" lavatories, and also make express provision for what will amount to "suitable" by reference to separate provision for men and women, they do not prohibit additional provision beyond what is "sufficient".
27 Each set of statutory provisions considered in the Interim Update provides a floor for provision of facilities. But neither provides a ceiling. It is fanciful to believe that these laws seek to regulate every possibility that can arise, day-to-day, and in circumstances that are too numerous to anticipate. Some public discourse is stated in terms of whether a person has a "right" to use a particular lavatory. If that is intended to refer to legal right, it is a bizarre turn of phrase. Those who provide facilities whether to the public or to their employees should comply with the law but also be guided by common sense and benevolence rather than allow themselves to be blinkered by unyielding ideologies.
151 Mr Justice Swift went on to state that an employer would comply with Regulation 20 of the Workplace Regulations if they adopted and applied a policy that female lavatories were available only to 'biological women' (and a similar policy regarding male lavatories being available only to 'biological men'):
"40 If the obligation under regulation 20 is as I have concluded, an employer who provides the lavatories required in the rooms required, and who in good faith adopted and applied a policy that the female lavatories were available only to biological women and the male ones only available to biological men, would do what is required by the Regulations. The employees concerned would know what was expected of them. Contrary to the Claimants' submission, this is not to say that an employer's compliance with regulation 20 will depend on the "minutia" of how the use of lavatories is managed. The notion that an employer or anyone else is required to "police" the use of a lavatory, person by person and day by day, reveals the application of a "logic" so strict that it is divorced from reality and from any sensible model of human behaviour.