Good law project v EHRC - granted oral hearing for permission to appeal

[LadyHelenaThistle]

https://goodlawproject.org/ehrc-guidance-were-heading-to-the-court-of-appeal/

Couldn’t see an active thread on this - does anyone understand what this development means? They’re using it to push more fundraising, of course.

”The court has granted three individual claimants – supported by Good Law Project – an oral hearing, as they seek permission to appeal the decision of the High Court made in February this year.”

I believe the only way to be able to make a submission to the EctHR is to first exhaust all possibilities in the domestic courts. Maybe that's what their ultimate aim is?

No Robin, they will not

But would the EctHR really be interested in obsolete guidance?

The Court of Appeal's decision on Thursday means much less than the GLP is suggesting. And the GLP's upbeat response fits a pattern.
labourpainsblog.com/2026/10/17/no-alarms-and-no-surprises-jolyon-maughams-legal-swagger-fails-to-impress-the-court-of-appeal/

I thought the appeal is more about how the workplace regulations were interpreted in the ruling rather than the interim guidance as such?

This is what they've said in the article on their website:

"Trans rights are human rights – they must be protected. We hope that the Court of Appeal will agree with us. But, if it doesn’t, our fight won’t end there. This is still the only route up to the European Court of Human Rights – and we’re ready to take it all the way".

If they do get so far as making a submission to the ECtHT, I would hope they would treat it as they have other sex v gender cases (such as the Freddie McConnell one) and refuse to hear it because it's within our margin of appreciation when rights are being balanced.

I thought the appeal is more about how the workplace regulations were interpreted in the ruling rather than the interim guidance as such?

Lady Justice Andrews doesn't seem convinced.

She said

"If, as they suggest, the alleged errors in the Guidance have been replicated in the Code, the correct course is to challenge the Code rather than to engage in a debate about obsolete Guidance which the Code superseded."

I would hope they would treat it as they have other sex v gender cases (such as the Freddie McConnell one) and refuse to hear it because it's within our margin of appreciation when rights are being balanced.

I agree with this.