Thread by @anyabike

The tribunal can reconsider a judgment of its own motion to correct a simple error. If the quotes attributed to the EAT in Forstater and the Supreme Court in Lee v Ashers were actually from other cases, easy enough to correct the reference. But I don't think that is the case here

The quote mentioned in the Courier article is from the EAT judgment in Forstater. How do we know it's not in that judgment? We search the judgment:

The word "hierarchy" is simply not there.

How can the judge correct this error now? bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…

In para.792 the ET argues that because the Supreme Court in FWS endorsed the EAT judgment in Forstater as "comprehensive and impressive", the SC can be taken to agree there is no hierarchy of protected characteristics. But the EAT didn't say that, so para.792 has to go too.

In para.793, there is another non-existent quote, this time from the Supreme Court in Lee v Ashers Baking Co. Guess what? The word "hierarchy" does not appear in that judgment either.

The judge can't just delete whole paragraphs. The error calls for an explanation.

In paras.803-804, there is an actual quote from FWS, but it's highly selective. This screenshot shows what is left out, and (underlined) the interpretation put on the quote. Shown correctly, it does not support that interpretation. How can the judge correct that now?

In para.808 the tribunal quotes a chunk from para.213 of For Women Scotland, and in para.809 goes on to draw conclusions from that which are directly adverse to the Claimant's case.

But look at what the tribunal leaves out of the quote from para.213. Everything highlighted in yellow. Which completely destroys the interpretation put on para.213 by the Peggie tribunal.

Each of the above is a significant error in a crucial part of the judgment, explaining why the Claimant loses on a central part of her case. The tribunal cannot just re-write this whole section of its judgment now. An appeal is inevitable.

The corrected judgment is out now. It just corrects (or purports to) the error reported in the Courier, replacing the non-existent quote with a completely different quote from Forstater EAT. It does not explain how the non-existent quote came to be used.🤨

As Jon from Levins points out, this correction is made under the "slip rule", and the slip rule is not to be used to correct substantive errors, nor to correct an incorrect citation of authority.

Just to be clear, I don't doubt it is *broadly* true that there is no hierarchy of protected characteristics in the EqA 2010, and I know there is authority for it. See eg Turani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 348

But if you're going to argue this means that a Supreme Court judgment holding that "sex" in the EqA 2010 means "biological sex" does *not* mean that women have any right to expect "women only changing room" to mean "women only changing room", you need to do better than just say

"no hierarchy of PCs in the EqA", given the SC's analysis in FWS relies in particular on an analysis of the exceptions to the Equality Act, where Parliament clearly decided to dis-apply that principle in cases where the dignity and privacy of women (and men) are at stake.