High Court judge has rejected a legal challenge to guidance issued by the equality watchdog on the use of public and workplace toilets and changing facilities by transgender people.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift advised businesses and service providers to comply with the law, obtain specialist advice where necessary, and apply “common sense” when organising facilities such as lavatories and changing rooms.
The guidance had been issued on an interim basis last April by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and was later withdrawn after six months. It stated that where single-sex facilities are required, they should be used by individuals of the same biological sex. For example, a trans woman, a biological male who identifies as a woman, would generally be expected to use male or gender-neutral facilities rather than those designated for females.
The Good Law Project (GLP) challenged the guidance, arguing that it was legally flawed and overly simplistic. Three anonymous individuals also raised concerns about its implications for employers and public services, including hospitals, shops and restaurants.
However, Mr Justice Swift said the claim that the guidance effectively allowed service providers to “require” transgender people to use facilities corresponding to their biological sex was not a reasonable interpretation. He ruled that the decision to publish the update promptly contained “no error of law”.
The interim guidance had followed a Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 which clarified that, under the Equality Act 2010, the terms “woman” and “sex” refer to biological sex. During proceedings, the judge dismissed the GLP’s argument that expecting a transgender person to use a gender-neutral facility could amount to less favourable treatment.
He also refused the group’s application for a judicial review, though he invited submissions on whether permission to appeal should be granted.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Swift noted that if a business provides a service used by both men and women, it does not constitute a single-sex service. He criticised the use of “polarised language” in court submissions suggesting that transgender people “must” use facilities aligned with their biological sex, or that the guidance assumed women’s rights automatically “trump” those of transgender individuals.
The judge concluded that providers of facilities should adhere to the law while being guided by “common sense and benevolence” rather than inflexible ideology.
Following the ruling, Jess O’Thomson, trans rights lead at the Good Law Project, said the organisation remained deeply concerned about aspects of the judgment but argued it showed the law had been “dangerously misrepresented”.
Gender-critical campaign group Sex Matters, which also made submissions to the court, welcomed the decision. Its chief executive, Maya Forstater, urged the government to issue final guidance without delay, stating that the Supreme Court’s position was already clear.
EHRC chair Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson also welcomed the finding that the Commission’s guidance had been lawful. She said the body’s role was to uphold rights under the Equality Act, including those relating to sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment, adding that a shared and accurate understanding of the law was essential.
The Commission’s full code of practice remains under consideration by the government.
Leave a Reply