On 13 February 2026, the High Court rejected (on all grounds) a judicial review challenge brought by Good Law Project and three individual claimants to the “interim update” that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (“EHRC”) published following the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers2 (which held that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”), “man”, “woman” and “sex” have their “biological” meaning).
This briefing note seeks to summarise the judgment and its likely implications, particularly in relation to the provision of toilets and other facilities. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such; the case law in this area is continuing to develop rapidly.
The decision makes it clear that what is required will to some degree be fact-specific. In many cases it will be difficult for organisations to know whether they have done enough to comply with all of the relevant obligations unless and until they are challenged.
Download the full briefing from BatesWells below.