Lead On 13 the High Court (King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court) handed down judgment in Good Law Project v Equality and Human Rights Commission ([2026] EWHC 279 (Admin), AC-2026-LON-001953). Delivered by Mr Justice Swift, the ruling probes how public bodies should read and apply equality duties — and although it clarifies some points, it also leaves important, fact-dependent questions unresolved.
What happened Good Law Project Limited sought judicial review of parts of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s approach to its statutory duties. The Health and Safety Executive, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Minister for Women and Equalities and devolved administrations were recorded as interested parties; Sex Matters intervened. The court heard written and oral argument in open court before giving its judgment.
Key legal findings – The judgment accepts that parts of the EHRC’s guidance and policy positions fall within lawful bounds. The court recognises that organisations may design measures aimed at protecting access and dignity without automatically breaching equalities law. – The ruling clarified how to assess proportionality and legitimate aims in equality disputes, offering interpretive guidance on statutory language and public-body obligations. – The court did not produce a single, catch‑all test for employers or service providers. Where protected characteristics conflict, assessments remain intensely fact-sensitive rather than rule-bound. – No enforcement action accompanied the judgment; the decision resolves the issues raised in this claim but may give rise to further procedural steps, including appeals.
What this means in practice For employers, public bodies and organisations that provide front-line services the upshot is twofold: – There is useful legal guidance to inform inclusive policy-making and service delivery. Courts will accept carefully tailored measures that pursue legitimate aims and are proportionate. – However, the judgment does not eliminate uncertainty. Employers must continue to carry out case-by-case assessments when competing rights collide; one-size-fits-all policies will be legally risky.
Practical steps organisations should take now – Review and update policies on service delivery, single-sex provision, reasonable adjustments and dignity at work to reflect the court’s reasoning. – Run targeted training for staff who make operational decisions so they understand how to apply proportionality and legitimate-aim tests in practice. – Record the factual basis for decisions: keep dated risk assessments, impact assessments, governance minutes and training logs. Good documentation will be a primary defence if a policy is challenged. – Commission focused legal briefings for HR, compliance and operational managers on likely implications and on whether to expect appeals or regulatory clarification. – Engage with affected communities and stakeholders when revising policies; show how their needs informed decision-making.
Next steps and monitoring Interested parties and administrations are likely to consider appeals or further procedural action. Regulators may publish clarifying guidance in response to the judgment. Organisations should monitor court records and official statements and be prepared to adapt policies if higher courts or regulators add further detail. It does not, however, supply tidy, universal answers — careful, documented, context-sensitive decision-making remains essential.