Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd & Ors [2024] EAT 119, [2025] ICR 46

In brief

The EAT (Bourne J) dismissed Allison Bailey's appeal against the ET's dismissal of her claim against Stonewall, and in the course of doing so reasoned openly about what follows if belief protection is symmetrical. At [132] he noted that 'just as Ms Bailey's beliefs are protected under sections 4 and 10, the same is likely to be true of Kirrin Medcalf's beliefs', and drew the consequence that matters most in practice: 'If those beliefs were protected under the 2010 Act, it would be surprising if a mere protest based on them were itself a contravention of the same Act.' At [21] the EAT records the ET's own finding at [53] that BOTH the belief that women are defined by sex AND the belief that gender is a matter of self-identity are protected, citing Forstater [2022] ICR 1. This is the tier that supplies the reasoning, not just the soundbite. It is the authority for the practical proposition people actually need: raising a belief-founded objection or complaint is not, by itself, misconduct — which cuts equally for a gender-critical complainant and for someone objecting on trans-positive grounds. Use it when a complaint, a stance, or an ally's expression is being treated as a disciplinary matter simply because of the belief behind it. THE LIMIT: this is the belief leg (s.10) only, and s.10 attaches to individuals, not to organisations. A trans person's own protection rests on BEING (s.7) and, where held, on GRA 2004 legal status — never on belief. A trans person may of course also hold and express the belief and be protected in that expression, but never needs to.

Key provisions

• [132] — Symmetry of belief protection, and the protest-is-not-a-contravention consequence (Bourne J): Verbatim: 'In arriving at that conclusion I bear in mind the context of the Equality Act 2010. I note that just as Ms Bailey's beliefs are protected under sections 4 and 10, the same is likely to be true of Kirrin Medcalf's beliefs (though the ET was not asked to decide that question). Just as she expressed her beliefs in the tweets about which he complained, Kirrin Medcalf expressed his beliefs in the complaint to GCC. If in doing so Kirrin Medcalf had sought to persuade GCC to do something contrary to the 2010 Act, then the torts of causing or inducing could have been made out. But the ET found that that was not what Kirrin Medcalf did. Instead, Kirrin Medcalf just made a protest based on his beliefs. If those beliefs were protected under the 2010 Act, it would be surprising if a mere protest based on them were itself a contravention of the same Act.'
• [21] — The ET's finding at [53] — both beliefs protected, on Forstater: Verbatim: 'It noted at [53] that both the belief that women are defined by sex, and the belief that gender is a matter of self-identity, are protected under the 2010 Act: see the decision of this Tribunal in Forstater v CGD Europe Ltd [2022] ICR 1.' PRECISION: EAT [21] SUMMARISES ET [53] in the EAT's own words. It does not reproduce it verbatim. (By contrast EAT [20] does quote ET [51]-[52] verbatim.) Cite it as the EAT's record of the ET's finding, not as a quotation of the ET.
• [131] — The actual disposal — responsibility lay with the chambers, not the campaign group: On the facts found, the ET was entitled to find that Stonewall was not liable for causing the basic contravention: responsibility for determining the complaint in a discriminatory way lay only with Garden Court Chambers.

When relevant

Reach for this record when the REASONING behind belief symmetry is needed rather than a single line, and specifically when a belief-founded complaint, objection or stance is being treated as misconduct in itself. Typical triggers: a grievance or disciplinary process opened because someone raised a belief-based objection; a code of conduct or social-media policy that sanctions the belief rather than isolating the conduct; an organisation deciding how to respond to an external complaint about an employee's expression; competing-rights outputs needing the boundary between protected protest and procuring a contravention. Use alongside BAILEY-STONEWALL-CA-2025 (the appellate endorsement), BAILEY-ET-2022 (the findings of fact), FORSTATER-EAT-2021 (the s.10 foundation) and HIGGS-CA-2025 (holding versus manifesting). FRAMING LIMIT: belief leg only. Never cite this record for a trans person's own protection, which rests on s.7 being and, where held, GRA 2004 status.