High court upholds EHRC interim advice on single‑sex services
The High Court has ruled that the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s EHRC interim advice on single‑sex services is a lawful interpretation of existing law. The judgment dismissed a challenge by the Good Law Project (GLP) and several anonymous claimants.
Mr Justice Swift considered procedural and substantive issues. He found that the EHRC’s statements offer practical guidance for employers and service providers on compliance with the law.
The ruling clarifies how current rules, including the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Equality Act, apply to facilities such as toilets, changing rooms and showers. The court acknowledged the sincere concerns raised by transgender and intersex claimants but rejected arguments that the interim advice unlawfully excluded them or breached their human rights.
Legal findings and standing
The court concluded that the Good Law Project did not have the necessary legal interest and therefore lacked standing to challenge the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interim advice. Anonymous claimants were found to have standing, so the court addressed their substantive objections in full.
Mr Justice Swift dismissed the anonymous claimants’ substantive complaints. He found no legal defect in the Commission’s advice and accepted that the update accurately reflected how the law applies to separate-sex facilities. The judge endorsed the view that the term single-sex in workplace rules is aimed at protecting privacy and decency by providing separate rooms for men and women, rather than merely marking symbolic or sign-based distinctions.
Implications for employers and service providers
Following the court’s finding on privacy and decency, Mr Justice Swift clarified the legal position for organisations that operate separate facilities. He said employers that adopt a clear policy restricting access to single-sex facilities on the basis of biological sex, and that implement that policy in good faith, will comply with the 1992 Regulations. The ruling therefore affirms that organisations may lawfully provide strictly separated facilities where appropriate.
The court also noted the Equality and Human Rights Commission‘s interim advice, which recommends practical steps for providers. Where single-sex rooms are offered, the EHRC advises, providers should, where possible, also offer mixed-sex or unisex facilities to accommodate those who cannot, or do not wish to, use single-sex spaces. The judge found no unlawfulness in encouraging the provision of both types of facilities as a practical measure to balance competing interests.
Workplace practice and policing concerns
The judge said employers need not stand guard at restroom doors to avoid criminal liability. Mr Justice Swift described that fear as overstated and tied compliance to practical measures.
He said a clear, well-communicated policy and reasonable expectations of staff behaviour will ordinarily meet legal obligations. The court rejected the view that the Regulations require intrusive surveillance to preserve single-sex spaces.
Human rights arguments and the court’s response
Following its finding that the Regulations do not require intrusive surveillance to protect single-sex spaces, the court addressed human rights claims. Claimants argued that denying access to certain single-sex facilities for transgender people could breach Article 8, the right to private and family life, by interfering with personal identity and autonomy.
The court rejected that argument. It found that the absence of a trans-inclusive single-sex lavatory does not amount to an absence of lavatory access. Requiring an individual to use an available unisex facility, the judge said, would rarely, if ever, constitute a sufficiently serious interference to engage Article 8 protection.
Mr Justice Swift recognised the practical and emotional concerns of those who prefer single-sex rooms. He nonetheless held that incidental workplace comments or gossip about someone’s choice of facility, while regrettable, normally do not provide a legal basis for redress.
Comparators and statutory interpretation
The court examined prior authority and considered how the words man and woman should be construed across different statutory contexts. The judgment followed the Supreme Court’s established approach to analogous issues, noting that statutory language must be read in light of legislative purpose and settled precedent.
Applying that framework, the court rejected attempts to broaden comparators in discrimination claims where such a reading conflicted with higher authority. It held that creating novel comparators by importing alternative definitions would undermine the statutory scheme and depart from controlling case law.
The reasoning emphasised consistency with precedent and the need for coherent interpretive principles when statutes use sex-based terms. The court therefore declined to adopt reinterpretations of man and woman that would produce outcomes at odds with earlier rulings and legislative intent.
Next steps and wider context
The Good Law Project has signalled it will appeal, prolonging legal scrutiny of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s approach. Campaign groups responded predictably: some welcomed the ruling as confirmation that separate-sex services can be lawfully maintained, while others criticised the decision for failing to provide broader clarity or for minimising the lived impact on transgender people. Ministers and regulators must decide how to convert the judgment into operational codes of practice.
For employers, charities and public bodies, the judgment offers legal reassurance that separate-sex facilities remain permissible under the 1992 Regulations and the Equality Act when applied in good faith. The ruling also reiterates the EHRC’s practical advice that providers should, where feasible, offer alternative unisex or mixed facilities to balance competing needs and reduce the risk of exclusion.
The immediate questions for policymakers are procedural: how guidance will be revised, what standards regulators will enforce, and how compliance will be monitored. Further litigation and regulatory guidance are likely to shape practical outcomes for service providers and users.
Concluding observations
The High Court upheld the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interim guidance as an accurate statement of the law. The court dismissed the principal legal challenges against the guidance. It also found that concerns about disproportionate enforcement obligations were not supported by the judgment.
The ruling does not end the issue. Further litigation and regulatory guidance are likely to shape practical outcomes for service providers and users. Political decisions will also influence how institutions reconcile privacy, dignity and inclusion in shared facilities. The planned appeal will keep the matter under continued legal and public scrutiny.