Nice clear summary that is helpful for those of us without a legal background. Will enable me to ignore the probable misinterpretation that will be floated by those with a vested interest pushing gender ideology
Michael, if Sex Matters had been granted permission to proceed, would this have established a precedent allowing them (or any other similar organisation) to take other wider reaching actions on behalf of, ie, women in the NHS, girls in schools?
Is there any other avenue that can avoid more and more individual women having to bring narrow and specific discrimination cases, half hoping each time that it will have to go to appeal to establish precedent?
It seems to me that we have no route to justice except by individuals having to sacrifice years of their lives plus coping with the financial risk of fundraising.
If the government won't act and the EHRC can't - what can we do to fill this gap between enforcing the rights of an individual and the rights of the whole group they belong to?
Thank you Michael for a very clear explanation of something that will puzzle a lot of people and undoubtedly be distorted by bad actors. The three month time limit in particular is deadly, given the problems faced in raising funds, getting a legal team together etc, even if there is standing.
Timing. Since the City of London are carrying out a consultation this challenge was premature. I think this is wrong - the Supreme Court has stated what the law is - any consultation will not change the law!
Standing. To take a judicial review you have to have standing. The Court felt that an individual ( or individuals) affected by the situation could have taken the case and that would be in the county court on grounds of discrimination. However, it is perfectly justifiable for an organisation which covers the issue in question to take the claim where an individual has not come forward.
Nice clear summary that is helpful for those of us without a legal background. Will enable me to ignore the probable misinterpretation that will be floated by those with a vested interest pushing gender ideology
Michael, if Sex Matters had been granted permission to proceed, would this have established a precedent allowing them (or any other similar organisation) to take other wider reaching actions on behalf of, ie, women in the NHS, girls in schools?
Is there any other avenue that can avoid more and more individual women having to bring narrow and specific discrimination cases, half hoping each time that it will have to go to appeal to establish precedent?
It seems to me that we have no route to justice except by individuals having to sacrifice years of their lives plus coping with the financial risk of fundraising.
If the government won't act and the EHRC can't - what can we do to fill this gap between enforcing the rights of an individual and the rights of the whole group they belong to?
Here is an example of a case where organisations as opposed to an individual or individuals took a case...all the way to the Supreme Court!!
https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/old/wolverhampton-cc-v-lgtuksc-2022-0046-judgment29112023.pdf
Dusty
Very interesting Dusty. Thank you.
(It'll take my non lawyer brain a while to read and understand but I've spotted some interesting points already.)
You're welcome, WOTE 😊
Thank you Michael for a very clear explanation of something that will puzzle a lot of people and undoubtedly be distorted by bad actors. The three month time limit in particular is deadly, given the problems faced in raising funds, getting a legal team together etc, even if there is standing.
JM Rowling has a charity that will fund any woman bringing a case in the UK.
So you were expecting this outcome Michael & consider it the right one in law?
Thanks, Michael, very useful...and swift!!!
My take on it is:
Timing. Since the City of London are carrying out a consultation this challenge was premature. I think this is wrong - the Supreme Court has stated what the law is - any consultation will not change the law!
Standing. To take a judicial review you have to have standing. The Court felt that an individual ( or individuals) affected by the situation could have taken the case and that would be in the county court on grounds of discrimination. However, it is perfectly justifiable for an organisation which covers the issue in question to take the claim where an individual has not come forward.
What do you think?
Thanks and have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/dark-star-let-there-be-light
Dusty