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

In brief

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. 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 Bank Mellat proportionality test as applied to service providers and employers operating single-sex services and facilities (toilets, changing rooms, lavatories), regulation 20 of the 1992 Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, and the lawfulness of trans-inclusive single-sex provision under the EA 2010 gender-reassignment non-discrimination provisions.

Key provisions

• holding-1 — 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.
• holding-2 — Scope of EHRC's statutory remit in issuing guidance: The case examined the scope of the EHRC's statutory remit in issuing guidance on the interpretation of the Equality Act, particularly post-FWS.
• holding-3 — Interaction between FWS judgment and practical workplace/service guidance: The case addressed the interaction between the FWS Supreme Court judgment and practical workplace and service delivery guidance issued by the EHRC.
• holding-4 — 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. Service providers and employers may lawfully operate a 'both-and' architecture under the EA 2010: single-sex provision (toilets, changing rooms, single-sex services) for those who need it, plus additional non-single-sex provision available to all.
• holding-5 — 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.
• holding-6 — 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.
• holding-7 — 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. An outcome of 'no provision for trans persons' or a requirement that 'all must use lavatories, toilets or changing rooms corresponding to biological sex' must be specifically justified as proportionate — and tends against being justifiable. The same position applies for employers operating single-sex services or facilities. Proportionality is assessed via the Bank Mellat four-stage test: (i) legitimate aim, (ii) rational connection, (iii) less intrusive alternative, (iv) fair balance.

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, applying the Bank Mellat four-stage proportionality test as a service provider or employer, or evaluating regulation 20 (1992 Workplace Regulations) compliance in workplaces where gender-reassignment non-discrimination obligations operate concurrently.