Kelly v Leonardo UK Limited (Case No. 8001497/2024)

In brief

B M Kelly, a gender-critical woman, challenged Leonardo's policy of toilet access based on asserted gender identity (para 233). The Tribunal dismissed all claims: the policy was unwanted conduct related to sex (paras 274-275) but failed s.26(4) reasonableness and individual disadvantage because it had 'no practical effect' on her (para 290) - behaviour unchanged, an adjacent private alternative unused. All four Dobson routes to group disadvantage failed on the evidence (paras 333-347). The Tribunal criticised the employer's process (no consultation, no EqIA, para 374) yet the claims failed on effect, not on process quality.

Key provisions

• holding-1 — No practical effect defeats harassment and disadvantage : A facilities policy that was unwanted conduct related to sex nonetheless failed s.26(4) reasonableness and individual disadvantage because it had no practical effect on the claimant: her behaviour never changed and a private single-occupancy alternative sat nearby unused (paras 290, 351).
• holding-2 — Article 8 is mutual, not one-sided : 'Both women and trans women (and men and trans men) have an Article 8 human right to a private life', with a wide margin of appreciation in balancing competing rights (para 160, citing Eweida).
• holding-3 — Group disadvantage requires evidence, not assertion : All four Dobson routes to proving group disadvantage (statistics, inference from the individual case, inherent disadvantage, judicial notice) failed on the evidence; on the claimant's own crime figures the Tribunal calculated 96% of assaults in the female toilets would be committed by biological women (paras 136, 333-347).
• holding-4 — Process failure condemned but not fatal - here : The policy was adopted with no consultation and no equality impact assessment - 'both surprising and disappointing given its significant size and resources' (para 374) - yet the claims still failed because the claimant proved no impact. Croft's phased approach was considered but would have made no difference on these facts (para 372).

When relevant

The clean illustration that facility-access claims stand or fall on demonstrated effect: the employer's process was condemned and it won anyway, because the claimant proved no practical impact. Pair with HUTCHINSON-ET-2026 and LS-NHSE-ET-2026 (process failures punished where impact was real) and PEGGIE-ET-2025 (response failures as the claim surface). Never cite as a good-process-wins case.