Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Michael Foran Profile picture
@michaelpforan
Feb 3, 2025 • 2 tweets • 1 min read • Read on X
The case in question is AB v Borough of Kingston (2021). The case was brought by a claimant in person and Robin Moira White defended the Borough against a charge of gender reassignment discrimination.
This is a first instance decision with practically no discussion of the legal rules in relation to "deadnaming" and where the Tribunal misnamed the Equality Act as the Equalities Act. I wrote about this here:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Michael Foran

Michael Foran Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @michaelpforan

Michael Foran Profile picture
Dec 30, 2025
In law there is some discretion to choose to have unisex or single-sex provision for toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards. But you can’t operate a single-sex facility or service on a basis other than biological sex. Generally you can have either unisex or single-sex.
The mistake some are making here is in presuming that it’s lawful to have a service that’s open to women and trans women but not men without the characteristic of gender reassignment. Such as service necessarily involves direct sex discrimination against the men excluded.
The only way you can operate a lawful service that involves direct sex discrimination is if you’re covered by an exception in the Equality Act. There are exceptions single-sex services operating on a biological sex basis. But there is no exception for a “single gender” service.
Read 6 tweets
Michael Foran Profile picture
Oct 31, 2025
Under the Equality Act 2006, if the minister does not approve draft guidance, she must provide the EHRC with reasons for rejecting the draft code of practise. Those reasons can be judicially reviewed for error of law, among other things.
This means that the Secretary of State is required, without unreasonable delay, to decide whether or not to reject the draft code and to provide reasons for a rejection. I do not think it would be lawful to refuse to make that decision while waiting for a RIA.
The process here is clear. If the minister does not wish to lay the draft code before Parliament she must reject it and provide written reasons for her decision. If her reason is that she considers a RIA to be necessary, that can be judicially reviewed.
Read 10 tweets
Michael Foran Profile picture
Jul 25, 2025
A point to note about the evidence today in Peggie v NHS Fife: Jane Russell KC was the first to suggest that the expert evidence on Dr Upton’s phone notes suggests that Upton has lied about the contemporaneousness of the notes. And she did it twice.
First, when she suggested that the expert was paid by Sandie Peggies legal team to come up with a report to say that Upton was lying - at which point Charlotte Elves asked her to clarify if she was accusing her opponents of professional misconduct and she apologised and withdrew.
At that point during a back and forth with the Judge, Jane Russell noted that on her interpretation of the evidence, the answers given said that Upton was lying. The Judge was clear that this is not what the witness said, meaning that this was Jane Russell’s interpretation of it
Read 6 tweets
Michael Foran Profile picture
Jul 6, 2025
When the Supreme Court hands down a judgment it states the law as it is and has always been. There is nothing to rush. If, following this decision, an organisation has unlawful policies, it is no defence to say “oh but we didn’t want to be hasty”.

heraldscotland.com/politics/viewp…
If you are responsible for a large employer or service provider, seek legal advice about the lawfulness of your policies following For Women Scotland. If you can’t afford that, please read this excellent explainer by Ben Cooper KC:

oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/upl…
I understand that people think the new code or practice for public services is important but it’s not law. It’s not authoritative. Whatever it says has lower standing than the judgement of an employment tribunal, let alone the Supreme Court.
Read 6 tweets
Michael Foran Profile picture
Apr 21, 2025
Important point re: last week's Supreme Court decision on the meaning of sex in equality law. Several outlets are saying ‘The Court ruled that trans women with a GRC can be excluded from single-sex spaces if it is proportionate to do so’. This is not accurate.
The above statement implies that the legal default is that single-sex services must include members of the opposite sex with GRCs unless on a case-by-case basis it is proportionate to exclude that individual. This is not correct.
The Supreme Court stated clearly that before you get to exclusion from a single-sex service, you must first meet the establishment conditions for having a single-sex services, and they won't be met if your service is intended to be mixed sex. Image
Read 8 tweets
Michael Foran Profile picture
Feb 11, 2025
Expected to be back soon, all parties in the room again. Not sure if I should be starting new threads but hopefully people can follow.
J just before we continue - remote access system is at risk of crashing due to high numbers. Been told that access will be restricted to media and Tribunal Tweets so they can report on proceedings.
J position will be reviewed as we progress. On to documents.
JR documents have been sent, received at 2.10 and asked for time to consider them. some redactions to confidentiality and reference to DUs GRC status which is not at issue and is sensitive personal data.
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(