header-logo header-logo

02 May 2025 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8114 / Categories: Features , Equality , Discrimination , Diversity
printer mail-detail

Equality Act 2010—‘man’, ‘woman’ & ‘sex’ defined

217270
Nicholas Dobson examines the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s recent decision on sex & gender
  • Looks at the Supreme Court’s judgment in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers.
  • The terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex.

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court conducted a major exercise in statutory interpretation. For its judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 focused on establishing the correct meaning of ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). And the court’s unanimous decision was that these terms refer to biological sex. Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler gave a joint judgment, with which the other justices agreed.

As the court explained in opening its long judgment, EqA 2010 ‘seeks to give statutory protection to people who are at risk of suffering from unlawful discrimination’. For while woman have historically suffered discrimination and, since the Sex Discrimination Act

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll