Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1662

In brief

The Court of Appeal dismissed Allison Bailey's appeal against the EAT, and in doing so put on the record — in the plainest words any appellate court has used on the point — that belief protection under the Equality Act 2010 runs in BOTH directions. At [93] Whipple LJ said the two sides 'both hold strong views which are diametrically opposed' and that 'Both sets of beliefs warrant protection under the 2010 Act'. The Court also endorsed the EAT's observation that Kirrin Medcalf, the Stonewall employee who complained about Ms Bailey's tweets, 'was only expressing his own beliefs' — beliefs which the EAT had said were themselves likely protected. This is the authority to reach for when an organisation's inclusive stance, or an individual's trans-positive or gender-identity belief, is attacked as merely 'political', 'ideological' or 'activism' rather than as a protected belief. It answers, symmetrically, the question people actually type: IS BEING TRANS-POSITIVE A PROTECTED BELIEF? OUR INCLUSION STANCE IS BEING CALLED IDEOLOGICAL — where do we stand? Does GENDER-CRITICAL BELIEF PROTECTION CUT BOTH WAYS? On the authorities: yes, the belief in gender self-identity and the gender-critical belief are both capable of protection under s.10, and the courts have said so from both ends of the argument. THE LIMIT THAT MATTERS MOST: this is the BELIEF leg only. A trans person's own protection does not rest on belief and never needs to — it rests on BEING (s.7 gender reassignment, a fact-based characteristic requiring no belief, no certificate and no medical step) and, where held, on LEGAL STATUS under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The belief leg is additional armour, and its distinctive value is for allies, colleagues and organisational stances — the people who have no s.7 leg to stand on. Never describe a trans person's identity as a belief: that repeats, in mirror image, the very error of reframing identity as ideology. Note also that the symmetry proposition here is persuasive endorsement rather than ratio (see temporal_note), and that organisations do not themselves hold protected beliefs — s.10 attaches to individuals.

Key provisions

• [93] — Both sets of beliefs warrant protection under the 2010 Act (Whipple LJ): Verbatim: 'It is a feature of this appeal that the two sides, Ms Bailey and Stonewall, both hold strong views which are diametrically opposed. Both sets of beliefs warrant protection under the 2010 Act.' In the same paragraph: 'The EAT was entitled to observe, based on the ET's findings, that Kirrin Medcalf was only expressing his own beliefs.' The Court adds that this was 'a reasonable point for the EAT to have made even if there was no finding by the ET to that effect' and was 'anyway not material to the EAT's conclusion'.
• [91]-[92] — Ground 3 and Stonewall's answer — the complaint as an expression of protected belief: [91] records the appellant's Ground 3: that the EAT wrongly took account of two irrelevant matters not argued before it, the second being 'that Stonewall's complaint was a legitimate expression of protected beliefs (EAT Decision para 132)'. [92] records Ms Omambala's answer for Stonewall: 'She says that the EAT was entitled to observe that the Stonewall complaint was an expression of beliefs which were protected under the 2010 Act; this was correct; but it is anyway immaterial to the EAT's Decision.'
• [41] — The Court of Appeal's record of EAT [132]: In summarising Bourne J's judgment, Whipple LJ records: 'He noted that Kirrin Medcalf's beliefs were also protected by the 2010 Act (EAT Decision para 132).'
• disposal — Appeal dismissed; the underlying outcome is unchanged: The appeal against the EAT was dismissed. The symmetry observations did not alter the result: Stonewall was not liable for causing a basic contravention under s.111(2), responsibility for determining the complaint in a discriminatory way lying only with Garden Court Chambers.

When relevant

Reach for this record whenever belief protection is being claimed in ONE direction only. Typical triggers: an organisation's trans inclusion policy, EDI stance or public position is challenged as 'political', 'ideological', 'activism' or 'Stonewall-captured'; an employee, ally or manager faces a complaint, grievance or disciplinary step over trans-positive expression; a complaint founded on a protected belief is itself being treated as misconduct; a competing-rights or coexistence output needs to state the legal position even-handedly rather than defensively. Also relevant to the drafting of codes of conduct, social-media policies and complaint-handling procedures that currently name only one belief as protected. Use alongside FORSTATER-EAT-2021 (belief protection established), HIGGS-CA-2025 (holding versus manifesting), BAILEY-STONEWALL-EAT-2024 (the reasoning below) and BAILEY-ET-2022 (the first-instance findings). CRITICAL FRAMING LIMIT: this record answers belief questions. It is NOT the authority for a trans person's own protection, which rests on s.7 being and, where held, GRA 2004 status — never on belief.