Update: The Equality And Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Revised Code Of Practice

Code of Practice

On 5 September 2025, the EHRC confirmed that the final updated draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations was handed to the Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP (the Minister for Work and Equality). The draft will be considered by the Government and, following ministerial approval, will be laid before Parliament for 40 days before it comes into force.

For those unfamiliar with the EHRC’s role, it is Britain’s independent equality regulator and provides expert advice on how to implement the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). The 2011 Code of Practice required updating following the 2025 Supreme Court’s ruling in this case.

Case

A regional Court case involving the Claimant and a national pool association marks the first time a Court has applied the above 2025 Supreme Court decision to a sporting context involving transgender rights.

Background

The case involved a professional transgender female pool player with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) who challenged her exclusion from women’s competitions after the English Blackball Pool Federation changed its rules in August 2023.

Previously, the Claimant had competed on the EBPF’s Kent women’s team, but the new rules restricted female competitions to people who were “biologically female” only. While she could still compete in men’s competitions, she felt this exclusion constituted discrimination based on her gender reassignment and brought a claim accordingly.

The Court’s decision

The Court dismissed the Claimant’s claim, but not for the reasons you might expect. The judgment hinged on how we define discrimination itself.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court ruled that the Claimant was excluded based on her biological sex (being born male), not because she was transgender. This distinction proved crucial – since sex discrimination wasn’t part of her legal claim, and the Claimant only brought a discrimination claim based on gender reassignment – the case couldn’t succeed.

Think of it this way: the Court found that a biological male without any transgender status would also have been excluded from women’s pool competitions. Therefore, the Claimant wasn’t treated differently because she was transgender; she was treated the same as any other biological male.

Why does this matter beyond sports?

This decision provides the first practical application of the Supreme Court’s guidance on how sex and gender reassignment are legally distinct concepts. The ruling confirms that under the EqA, “sex”, “man”, “woman”, “male”, and “female” refer exclusively to biological characteristics, not to transgender individuals’ acquired gender. The definition of  “woman” in the EqA therefore excludes trans women holding a GRC.

For businesses, sports organisations, and service providers, this clarifies when single-sex provisions can legally exclude transgender individuals – it must be based on biological sex considerations, not transgender status itself.

The sporting angle

Interestingly, the Court went further than necessary for its decision, examining whether pool qualified as a “gender-affected activity” under equality law. Despite pool’s reputation as a game of skill rather than strength, the Court found that physical factors like reach and power (particularly for break shots) do give biological males advantages over biological females.

This suggests that even sports we might not traditionally consider “physical” could still justify sex-based categories for competitive fairness.

Looking ahead

This case represents just the beginning of how Courts will apply the principles across different contexts, with sports likely to see more challenges as organisations navigate these legal waters.

For any organisation grappling with similar policy decisions, this case demonstrates the importance of carefully considering whether exclusions are genuinely based on biological sex requirements rather than transgender status. The legal distinction matters enormously for whether such policies can be successfully challenged.

Comment

While this decision may disappoint some and reassure others, it provides much-needed legal clarity in a complex area. Organisations can now make more informed decisions about single-sex provisions, while transgender individuals better understand the current legal landscape and their rights within it. Further, the revised Code of Practice (once published and implemented) will provide further guidance on what steps should be taken to ensure that those providing services, public functions, and associations do not discriminate against people.