Haynes v Thomson & Anor (on behalf of the English Blackball Pool Federation) [2025] EWCC 50 (01 August 2025)

Haynes v Thomson & Anor (on behalf of the English Blackball Pool Federation) [2025] EWCC 50 (01 August 2025)

The claim fails because, following the Supreme Court's decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. The claimant was excluded from the women's competition because she is biologically male, which is sex discrimination, not gender reassignment discrimination. As the claim was pleaded only on grounds of gender reassignment discrimination and not sex discrimination, it must be dismissed.

Citation
[2025] EWCC 50
Parties
Claimant: Harriet Haynes; Defendant: Paul Thomson; Defendant: Anna Goodwin on behalf of the English Blackball Pool Federation (an unincorporated association)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Equality Act 2010 Discrimination Claim / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Gender Reassignment Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Equality Act 2010, Gender Affected Activity, Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights
Equality and Discrimination Law Sports Law Gender Reassignment Discrimination Sex Discrimination Equality Act 2010 Gender Affected Activity Human Rights Act 1998 European Convention on Human Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harriet Haynes

Claimant

Paul Thomson

Defendant

Anna Goodwin on behalf of the English Blackball Pool Federation (an unincorporated association)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equality Act 2010 Discrimination Claim / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of a trans woman from women's pool competitions is direct discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the rule change by the EBPF is justified under the Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Effect of the Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 on interpretation of 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because, following the Supreme Court's decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. The claimant was excluded from the women's competition because she is biologically male, which is sex discrimination, not gender reassignment discrimination. As the claim was pleaded only on grounds of gender reassignment discrimination and not sex discrimination, it must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed