Good Law Project Ltd & Others v Commission for Equality and Human Rights [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin)

In brief

The High Court dismissed a judicial review brought by the Good Law Project and individual claimants (BOT, BNW, BBS) against the EHRC, challenging its interim guidance published after the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment. The challenge failed: Swift J held that 'each of the three grounds of challenge fails' and that 'the application for judicial review is therefore dismissed' [103]. It was a rolled-up hearing — permission to apply for judicial review was granted to the second, third and fourth claimants, but the Good Law Project's own application was 'refused for want of standing' [102], reasons at [15]-[17]. The challenge to the Interim Update therefore failed, although the EHRC had itself removed the Interim Update from its website on 15 October 2025, before the hearing [1], [93]. Health and Safety Executive, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Minister for Women and Equalities, Welsh Ministers, and Scottish Ministers joined as interested parties. Sex Matters intervened. Substantive holdings cover the EA 2010 Schedule 3 paragraph 28 single-sex exception, the statutory condition that single-sex provision be 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' as applied to service providers and employers providing single-sex lavatories and changing rooms (the judgment applies that statutory wording and does not cite Bank Mellat) [66], [71], regulation 20 of the 1992 Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, and trans-inclusive provision: a lavatory used other than by reference to biological sex is mixed-sex, not single-sex, for the purposes of the EA 2010 [53], [61]; trans-inclusive lavatories could be provided consistently with the EA 2010, subject to an undecided point on whether that is less favourable treatment of men [57]-[62], [99(a)], and an employer could provide one as additional provision [99(b)].

Key provisions

• para-9 — Challenges to EHRC interim guidance post-FWS : The Good Law Project challenged EHRC interim guidance issued post-FWS. The case raised questions about the scope and lawfulness of EHRC guidance on single-sex exceptions.
• para-21 — Scope of EHRC's statutory remit in issuing guidance : Per [21], the power at section 13(1)(d) EA 2006 to give advice or guidance is a power to give accurate advice or guidance: in issuing the Interim Update the EHRC had to provide an accurate statement of the law without misstatement or material omission.
• para-27 — Floor, not ceiling: the legislation does not regulate every situation that can arise : Per [27], each set of statutory provisions considered in the Interim Update (the EA 2010 and the 1992 Workplace Regulations) provides a floor for provision of facilities but not a ceiling; the legislation does not seek to regulate every situation that can arise.
• para-26 — Single-sex provision does not prohibit additional non-single-sex provision : Per [26], the parts of the EA 2010 considered in the Interim Update concerned WHEN single-sex provision is permissible under Schedule 3 Part 7; the Act does not exclude or prohibit other provision. The 1992 Workplace Regulations similarly require 'suitable and sufficient' lavatories with separate provision for men and women but do not prohibit additional provision beyond what is sufficient. On our reading ('both-and' is our phrase, not the judge's), service providers and employers may make single-sex provision and also additional mixed-sex or trans-inclusive provision [26], [67], [99]; the judge left open whether excluding other men from a trans-inclusive lavatory is less favourable treatment of them [57]-[62], [99(a)].
• para-42 — Workplace Regs 1992 reg 20 and EA 2010 GR non-discrimination are concurrent obligations : Per [42], all employers must comply with regulation 20 of the 1992 Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations (single-sex 'sufficient and suitable' lavatories at work) and must also comply with their obligations under Part 5 of the EA 2010, including the obligation not to discriminate directly or indirectly by reason of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Where an employer provides lavatories as required by regulation 20, the totality of the lavatory provision must not be discriminatory on grounds of gender reassignment. Regulation 20 does not displace EA 2010; it operates concurrently. The same proportionality reasoning applies in modified form to service providers under EA 2010 Part 3 Schedule 3 paragraph 28.
• para-61 — Different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex (circumstances decisive) : Per [61], where men's and women's lavatories are materially similar in extent and location, in principle there is scope for a strong argument that a rule permitting trans women to use the women's lavatory or changing room while requiring biological men to use the men's amounts to different but NOT less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. The judge stressed that the circumstances of the case would be decisive. The single-sex facility may be labelled simply 'women's' — for the purposes of the EA 2010 it would be mixed-sex (single-sex women plus trans women); for the purposes of the rule applied to biological men, it remains labelled 'women's' and they are not admitted.
• para-71 — Schedule 3 paragraph 28 proportionality — birth-sex requirement hard to justify : Per [71], the single-sex exception in EA 2010 Schedule 3 Part 7 (paragraph 28) only insulates a service provider from a gender-reassignment discrimination claim where the single-sex provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That condition tends against a situation where the consequence of the single-sex provision is either no provision for transsexual persons or a requirement that all must use lavatories corresponding to biological sex; such an outcome would have to be justified as proportionate. The same position applies for employers operating single-sex services or facilities. The judgment applies the statutory wording ('a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim') and does not cite Bank Mellat or set out a staged test [66], [71].

When relevant

Understanding the evolving regulatory landscape post-FWS. Relevant when advising on how to interpret the EHRC's revised guidance and codes of practice. Also directly relevant when designing single-sex services or facilities (toilets, changing rooms, lavatories, intimate or sensitive services), assessing proportionality of a single-sex exception under EA 2010 Schedule 3 Part 7 paragraph 28, or evaluating regulation 20 (1992 Workplace Regulations) compliance in workplaces where gender-reassignment non-discrimination obligations operate concurrently.