Overview The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interim guidance on single-sex services, finding the EHRC’s interpretation accurately reflects the law for employers and service providers. The claim, brought by the Good Law Project and three individuals, failed in full. The judge concluded that providing separate-sex lavatories, changing rooms or showers in line with the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Equality Act can be lawful and does not automatically breach human rights.
What the court decided The court endorsed the EHRC’s reading of the regulations: facilities designated for one sex are meant to offer privacy to that sex, and allowing members of the opposite biological sex to use them would frustrate the regulations’ purpose. That means a policy that restricts access to the relevant biological sex, and is applied in good faith, can satisfy employers’ obligations under regulation 20 of the 1992 Regulations.
Why this matters This ruling reduces uncertainty for regulators, employers and organisations struggling to balance privacy, decency and equality duties. It gives a tested legal statement to guide workplace policies and regulatory advice, so organisations can design and operate facilities with clearer legal footing while still assessing individual circumstances and safeguarding needs.
Key legal challenges the court rejected – The claim that the 1992 regulations only require separate rooms with signage, not restricted access: the judge rejected this, saying the regulations aim to secure private space for each sex for reasons of conventional decency. – The argument that a strictly biological-sex interpretation is unworkable because biological sex might be unknown: the court found prior tribunal reasoning on that point did not displace the regulation’s intent for the purposes of interpreting regulation 20. – The contention that the EHRC guidance unlawfully discriminates or misstates statutory duties: the judge found the guidance consistent with established legal principles and statutory purpose.
Human rights and equality issues The claimants argued the EHRC update interfered with Article 8 rights (private life) and made it harder for people to access facilities consistent with gender identity. The court disagreed. It held that the absence of a trans-inclusive lavatory is not the same as the absence of any lavatory, and that maintaining single-sex provision can be lawful where it is balanced against others’ rights to privacy and decency.
Importantly, the judgment recognises lawful routes for inclusion: providers may offer unisex or additional mixed-sex facilities alongside single-sex provision. While limited restrictions on access can amount to interference with Article 8, such interference may be justified if proportionate and balanced against competing rights.
Practical implications for employers and regulators – Clear policies matter. Employers should set out understandable, good-faith rules about facility use and apply them consistently. The court signalled that most employees will comply without onerous policing. – Provide alternatives where feasible. Offering mixed-sex or single-user accessible toilets alongside single-sex facilities can reduce conflict and demonstrate proportionality. – Review practice as well as policy. Courts will look at how facilities operate in practice, not just what signs or written rules say.
What to expect next This judgment will shape future guidance and tribunal decisions. Regulators are likely to update advisory material in light of the ruling, and public bodies, businesses and charities will use the decision to refine policies that reconcile privacy, dignity and equality. Employers can lawfully maintain single-sex spaces when they do so for the purpose of protecting privacy and decency, apply policies in good faith, and where possible offer practical alternatives to accommodate different needs.