An update in our judicial review of the EHRC’s interim guidance

In accordance with our normal transparency principles, Good Law Project today publishes three further key documents in our judicial review of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)’s interim guidance. Those documents are (1) our amended case (2) the EHRCs’ detailed defence and (3) the secretary of state’s response.

The rolled-up hearing starts on 12 November 2025, and so there is limited real world value in us discussing at length what the EHRC and secretary of state’s documents mean.

However, in relation to the EHRC’s detailed defence, it should be noted that it departs meaningfully from a natural reading of the passage in the interim guidance that read:

“In workplaces and services that are open to the public: 

• trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex.”

And the secretary of state’s response notes (at paragraph 26) that:

“A trans-exclusive approach by [duty bearers] would likely engage s.19 EA 2010 in that such an approach may well put trans people at a particular disadvantage relative to people who are not trans. This would require the service provider to justify the trans-exclusive approach. The possibility that a trans-exclusive approach will require justification appears to be accepted by the EHRC DGs (§87).”

Late on 10 October 2025 Sex Matters applied to intervene in the case with very detailed evidence. The Civil Procedure Rules provide that “any such application must be made promptly” and we will be objecting on the basis that it was made too late, including to adduce fresh evidence.