Bailey v Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd (County Court, Case No K03CL077, 2025)
A barrister (Allison Bailey) was de-registered by her veterinary practice because of her gender-critical beliefs expressed on social media. The County…
Authority catalogue v1.12.27 data current as of
Read the source at mfmac.com ↗
- Citation
- County Court Case No K03CL077
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Year
- 2025
- Status
- Persuasive
- Certainty
- Settled
In brief
A barrister (Allison Bailey) was de-registered by her veterinary practice because of her gender-critical beliefs expressed on social media. The County Court found this constituted direct discrimination in the provision of services under s.29 EA2010. The practice's internal culture around trans rights, and the selective application of its zero-tolerance policy (applied to gender-critical views but not to opposing views), were evidence of discriminatory motive. This extends the Forstater line of authority from employment into services.
Key provisions
- holding-1 — Gender-critical belief protection extends beyond employment to goods and services under s.29 EA2010: Gender-critical belief protection extends beyond employment to the provision of goods and services under s.29 EA2010.
- holding-2 — A service provider that de-registers or refuses service because of a client's gender-critical beliefs may be directly discriminating: A service provider that de-registers or refuses service because of a client's gender-critical beliefs may be directly discriminating under s.13 EA2010.
- Selective enforcement of 'zero-tolerance' policies — applied to one set of beliefs but not others — is evidence of discriminatory motive: Selective enforcement of "zero-tolerance" policies — applied to gender-critical beliefs but not to other beliefs — is evidence of discriminatory motive.
- holding-3 — The internal culture of an organisation around trans issues can be relevant evidence in discrimination claims: Selective enforcement of "zero-tolerance" policies — applied to gender-critical beliefs but not to other beliefs — is evidence of discriminatory motive.
When relevant
Service providers, membership organisations, and any organisation that provides goods or services to people who may hold gender-critical beliefs. Relevant to the toolkit's competing rights framework — organisations must balance protection for trans people AND people with gender-critical beliefs, not just in employment but in service delivery. Affects L2-F2 (Boundary Testing) and the Roast's analysis of belief-accommodation in service contexts.
Take this further
Assess your organisation
See how your policies and practice measure up against this authority — and the other 121 in the catalogue — with the toolkit's free diagnostic.
Related authorities
- Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre [2023] ETS 4102236/2023
- Haynes v Thomson and Others [2025] EWCC 50
- Hutchison & Others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (Case No. 2501192/2024 & Others)
- Kelly v Leonardo UK Limited (Case No. 8001497/2024)
- Lockwood v Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust [2025] ET 2401211/2024
- Meade v Westminster City Council and Social Work England [2023] ET 2211483/2022
Browse the full authority catalogue or the toolkit's resources hub for more context.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 .