Haynes v Thomson and Others [2025] EWCC 50

In brief

A trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate was excluded from women's pool competitions after the English Blackball Pool Federation changed its rules to permit only those 'born biologically female.' The County Court dismissed her gender reassignment discrimination claim, holding that post-FWS the exclusion was based on biological sex rather than gender reassignment — applying the Supreme Court's distinction between these two separate protected characteristics. The court observed that a sex discrimination claim (which would have engaged the post-FWS biological sex definition) was not pleaded.

Key provisions

• Post-FWS, excluding a trans woman from a single-sex activity on the basis of biological sex is not gender reassignment discrimination — it is (potentially) sex discrimination: Post-FWS, excluding a trans woman from a single-sex activity on the basis of biological sex is not gender reassignment discrimination — it is potentially sex discrimination.
• holding-1 — The distinction between sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination is critical to how claims are framed post-FWS: Post-FWS, excluding a trans woman from a single-sex activity on the basis of biological sex is not gender reassignment discrimination — it is potentially sex discrimination.
• holding-2 — A GRC does not prevent exclusion from single-sex activities where the basis is biological sex: The distinction between sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination is critical to how claims are framed post-FWS.
• holding-3 — The correct claim for a trans woman excluded on biological sex grounds may be sex discrimination, not gender reassignment discrimination: A Gender Recognition Certificate does not prevent exclusion from single-sex activities where the basis of exclusion is biological sex.
• holding-4 — The sport was found to be 'gender-affected' and exclusion would have been proportionate even if gender reassignment discrimination had been established: The correct claim for a trans woman excluded on biological sex grounds may be sex discrimination under s.13, not gender reassignment discrimination under s.7.

When relevant

Single-sex service provision, sport, and any scenario where a trans person with a GRC is excluded on biological sex grounds. Critical for understanding the post-FWS claims framework — the protected characteristic under which to bring a challenge affects whether the claim succeeds. Relevant to proportionality assessments and the Rights Impact Module Pathway C.