header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Exploring the reasoning behind For Women at the Supreme Court

02 May 2025
Issue: 8114 / Categories: Legal News , Equality , Discrimination , Human rights , Diversity
printer mail-detail
217270
The Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers has sparked heated debate and a lot of confusion about what it means exactly in practice. In this week’s NLJ, Nicholas Dobson takes an in-depth look at some of the legal arguments behind the judgment.

As Dobson writes, the unanimous judgment is ‘a major exercise in statutory interpretation’, on the meaning of ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), and the effect on this of a gender recognition certificate. He explores some of the statutory and caselaw background to the decision.

Dobson writes: ‘The court considered the concept of sex to be “of foundational importance” in EqA 2010. It would be surprising if “sex” and “woman” were intended to have different meanings in different parts of EqA 2010.’ 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dispute resolution team welcomes associate in London

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Special education needs and mental capacity expert joins as partner

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll