County Court decision in first Gender Case since Supreme Court Ruling

Since the Supreme Court ruling in April that changed the narrative over gender issues, the Courts have not had a chance to consider how this applies in their decisions. That is until a recent case Haynes v English Blackball Pool Federation.

As this was decided in a Lower Court, it does not have much power to change the law, but it does indicate what future outcomes might be in other cases. And, that this Court, at least, decided that the legal baseline is now biological sex.

What Happened?

In Canterbury County Court, transgender woman Harriet Haynes, who holds a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), sued the pool governing body for excluding her from women competitions. The Court dismissed her claim, ruling that under the Supreme Court’s April 16, 2025 judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, the Equality Act 2010 defines “woman” and “sex” as biological terms, not based on GRCs.

The Court further held that pool is a “gender‑affected activity”. In this sport, men typically have a strength and power advantage (e.g. break shots), making separate competitions a proportionate means to achieve the legitimate aim of fair play and female inclusion under section 195 and Schedule 3 paragraph 28 of the Act.

Why It Matters for SMEs

If your organisation offers single‑sex services, membership groups, competitions or sporting events, this legal shift may require you to review and update policies. The legal baseline now is biological sex, not self‑identification or gender recognition certificates.

The EHRC is updating its Code of Practice to reflect this change, potentially mandating exclusions from sex‑segregated environments based on biology. The guidance is already influencing employers, sports clubs, schools, and hospitality providers.

Practical Advice: What Should SMEs Do?

1. Review Your Policies and Communications

• Check whether internal policies or public-facing materials reference inclusivity are based on gender identity rather than biological sex - you may need to amend these.

• Where you offer protected spaces (e.g., women‑only memberships or sports teams), ensure criteria align with biological sex definitions under the Act.

2. Assess Legitimacy of Single‑Sex Differentiation

• Whenever you differentiate access to facilities, to roles or even services for your customers or staff, based on biological sex or trans status, make sure you are not doing so in a discriminatory fashion. Ensure you can justify it under a legitimate aim, such as fairness, safety, or privacy. That justification must be proportionate, and evidenced by who is making use of the facilities.  If unsure, get expert input.

3. Communication and Legal Risk

• Train staff on the changed legal framework: reference to “woman” now equals biological female in this context.

• Be aware of gender-critical employees - some legal claims may arise if staff refuse to comply with workplace policies that now align with biological sex definitions (e.g. pronouns or changing room assignments).

4. Implement Practical Solutions

• Consider gender‑neutral or open categories and facilities where inclusion is important - but retain single-sex options where reasonably needed (e.g., sports teams, changing rooms, or spaces for privacy-sensitive services).

• If you operate competitions, adding an “Open” category (as EBPF does for transgender players) is a lawful, inclusive option that aligns with proportionality.

Why This Impacts You

The Supreme Court ruling (16 April 2025) fundamentally reinterprets parts of the Equality Act 2010; it's not a narrow Scottish decision - it's UK-wide in application

The Haynes judgment is the first legal application of that ruling in sport, and shows how Courts treat “gender‑affected” activities (pool) and apply justification defences under the Act.

The EHRC’s evolving guidance is expected to formalise these interpretations soon -compliance will be essential to avoid legal exposure.

In Summary

• Biological sex = legal “sex” under Equality Act 2010

• Policies and practices must be revised to reflect this

• Single‑sex services or competitions are lawful when fairly justified

• Offering open/mixed options alongside female-only ones helps balance inclusion and fairness

If you run services, sport leagues, or spaces that distinguish by sex - or rely on gender identity for classification - review your procedures, and consider legal advice tailored to your specific context.

The guidance provided in this article is just that - guidance. Before taking any action, make sure that you know what you are doing, or call an expert for specific advice