High Court dismisses challenge to single-sex toilet guidance

A High Court judge has dismissed a legal challenge to the equality watchdog's guidance on which public or workplace toilets and changing rooms transgender people should use.

The judgment urged businesses and services to follow the law, seek specialist advice, but also use "common sense" in how they organised facilities such as toilets.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance last April and withdrew it six months later.

It said in situations where single sex facilities are required, they should only be used by people of the same biological sex.

It also said that, for instance, a trans woman - a biological male who identifies as a woman - would be expected to use a gender-neutral toilet or male toilets, not those for females.

Campaign group, the Good Law Project (GLP), claimed the guidance was "legally flawed" and "overly simplistic".

Three anonymous individuals also criticised the guidance, which is for employers and public services such as hospitals, shops and restaurants.

The judge, Mr Justice Swift, said the submission made to him was that "in substance" the guidance suggested service providers can "require" a transgender person to use lavatories that correspond to their biological sex.

"I do not consider this is a reasonable reading of the guidance," he said.

The judge continued that the decision to publish the update "promptly" contained "no error of law".

The commission's now withdrawn guidance was issued shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in April 2025 that under the 2010 Equality Act, the words "woman" and "sex" referred to a biological woman and biological sex.

Swift dismissed an argument from lawyers for the GLP at the hearing last year, that expecting a trans person to use a gender-neutral toilet could amount to "less favourable treatment".

The judge also refused an application by the campaign group for a judicial review but asked for submissions from all parties on whether an appeal should be allowed.

Friday's judgement said "one clear conclusion" reached by the Supreme Court was that if an employer or business provided a service used by both men and women "then it would not be a single sex service".

The judge criticised "polarised language" in legal submissions made to the court that suggested a trans person "must" use the lavatory that corresponds to their biological sex, or that the guidance assumed that women's rights "trump" the rights of trans people.

He also said that those who provide facilities should comply with the law but also be "guided by common sense and benevolence rather than allow themselves to be blinkered by unyielding ideologies".

Jess O'Thomson, the GLP's trans rights lead, said the group was "deeply concerned about many aspects" of the court's ruling but that it also showed that the law "has been dangerously misrepresented".

Gender critical campaign group, Sex Matters, also made legal submissions at the November hearing. On Friday, its chief executive Maya Forstater urged the government to issue the final guidance "without delay".

She said: "The law is clear. There was never any excuse for the government, public bodies, regulators, charities or businesses to delay in implementing the Supreme Court judgement."

The chair of the EHRC, Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, welcomed the judgement's finding that its guidance was lawful.

"It's our job to champion everyone's rights under the Equality Act, including those with the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. A shared and correct understanding of the law is essential to that endeavour," she said.

The EHRC's full guidance or code of practice is still being considered by the government.