The Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers has sparked heated debate and a lot of confusion about what it means exactly in practice. In this week’s NLJ, Nicholas Dobson takes an in-depth look at some of the legal arguments behind the judgment.
As Dobson writes, the unanimous judgment is ‘a major exercise in statutory interpretation’, on the meaning of ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), and the effect on this of a gender recognition certificate. He explores some of the statutory and caselaw background to the decision.
Dobson writes: ‘The court considered the concept of sex to be “of foundational importance” in EqA 2010. It would be surprising if “sex” and “woman” were intended to have different meanings in different parts of EqA 2010.’RELATED ARTICLES
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77b6c3cc_1)
