High Court ruling on EHRC Interim Guidance 

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to the EHRC’s ‘interim update’ on the practical consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16.  

The EHRC subsequently withdrew the interim update pending a revised Code of Practice, but the Court has confirmed that the guidance was – and remains – an accurate statement of the law. For employers navigating the conflicting tribunal judgments and commentary in this area, this decision provides some clarity (if not full certainty). 

The EHRC’s summary of the case and the full judgment are available at the following link.

Facts of the case 

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers last year (which confirmed that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex), the EHRC issued an interim update in April 2025 explaining the implications for single sex spaces, such as toilets and changing rooms, in workplaces and services. See our previous briefing on the Supreme Court case. 

The Good Law Project, together with individual claimants, challenged the EHRC update, arguing that it misstated the law, breached the EHRC’s duties, and conflicted with human rights. The interim update was withdrawn in October 2025, but the High Court agreed to hear the challenge because the EHRC maintained that it was legally correct and many employers had already relied on it. 

Meanwhile, employment tribunals have issued conflicting first instance decisions on the issue of access to single-sex spaces. 

• Peggie v Fife Health Board ET4104864/2024 – the tribunal held that it is not inherently unlawful for a trans woman to be permitted to use a female changing room, depending on all the circumstances, and provided the employer applies the objective justification test when making a decision on the use of single-sex spaces in order to balance conflicting protected characteristics.

• Hutchinson v County Durham & Darlington NHS Trust ET2501192/2024 – the tribunal reached the opposite conclusion to Peggie, finding that a policy allowing access based on asserted gender and without providing alternative facilities amounted to harassment and indirect sex discrimination of the claimants. 

These decisions are both currently under appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. 

High Court decision 

The High Court held that the EHRC’s interim update was not an inaccurate statement of the law.  

Regulation 20 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (the Regulations) requires separate male and female toilet facilities by biological sex, unless each facility is a lockable single-occupancy room. Allowing trans women to use female facilities would breach Regulation 20, but the Court emphasised that employers must still comply with gender reassignment protections under the Equality Act 2010. 

The EHRC was entitled to state that employers and service providers may lawfully provide single sex spaces, where justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, while also making provision for trans people wherever possible. 

In addition, allowing some biological males (trans women) into a female-only space while excluding other biological males may pose a direct sex discrimination risk, depending on the facts. 

The Court also confirmed: 

1. The EHRC was not in breach of its statutory duties. It was entitled to issue a short, high-level update focusing on the impact of For Women Scotland. Its statutory duties allow broad discretion, and nothing in the guidance fell outside that scope. 

2. Neither the Equality Act 2010 nor the Regulations inherently interfere with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (respect for private and family life). Any interference in individual cases was capable of justification. 

The High Court’s judgment is binding on employment tribunals in England and Wales (and is persuasive in Scotland), giving the EHRC’s interpretation real weight even though the interim update has been withdrawn. 

The Birketts view 

The law in this area remains complex. Both Peggie and Hutchinson show how fact-sensitive these cases are, and both of those decisions remain first instance only pending appeal hearings (meaning they are not a binding authority). The High Court decision provides some clarity on the position, but employers still need to tread carefully. Employers should: 

• Review their workplace facilities. Treat biological sex as the legally relevant category for toilet provision under the Regulations. Provide single occupancy, lockable unisex options wherever possible – these were expressly recognised as lawful and inclusive. 

• Assess other sensitive spaces. For changing rooms, showers or other intimate facilities, employers should conduct a documented proportionality assessment. Tribunals are likely to take into account some or all of the following factors: 
  • staff views and objections 
  • available alternative spaces 
  • privacy and dignity impacts 
  • stage of transition/appearance (this is controversial and may not survive appeal). 

• Avoid blanket policies. Policies that automatically allow access based on self-identified gender (as in Hutchinson) are high risk, particularly without alternative spaces. Employers’ decision-making may be subject to scrutiny, making it important to document the process. 

• Train managers appropriately. In both tribunal cases highlighted above, problems arose because concerns were dismissed, staff felt labelled as prejudiced, or processes were mishandled. Following fair and thorough procedures, with sensitivity to all views, will be essential in order for employers to minimise risk. 

The High Court’s judgment brings some welcome clarity, confirming that the EHRC’s core interpretation of the law on single sex spaces is sound. However, a revised EHRC Services Code, submitted to the government in September 2025, is still awaiting final approval. Appeals in both Peggie and Hutchinson are pending, and more litigation is expected, meaning that this remains a sensitive and evolving area for employers to navigate.