PUBLIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Smith v The FA (1)​

Judicial review of The Football Association in connection with its partnership with Stonewall and regarding its authorisation and encouragement of players to wear rainbow laces and armbands during Pride month. The Claimant was a gay Newcastle supporter who is gender critical and does not want to see politics in football. The FA changed its position after we issued proceedings in the High Court and announced it was dropping the Rainbow Laces Campaign, which had been running for over 10 years, and henceforth was dissociating itself from Stonewall.  CONCLUDED

​

Smith v The FA (2)
​

A judicial review of The FA’s decision to allow the Premier League with Pride campaign, which contravenes The FA’s own rules prohibiting political messaging.  ONGOING

​

The Good Law Project & Others v The Equality and Human Rights Commission

​​

Seminal litigation regarding the application of the Supreme Court decision For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 via the EHRC’s much-discussed interim guidance.  We represented the charity, Sex Matters, in its intervention in a case brought by the Good Law Project, which challenges guidance issued by the Commission on single sex spaces. Judgment received.  Permission to appeal is being sought by GLP and we will continue to act for Sex Matters.  ONGOING

​

Christian Institute v Civil Service

​​

A judicial review claim against Keir Starmer as head of the Civil Service and against the Cabinet Office for serious breaches of the duty of impartiality owed by civil servants as evidenced by the taxpayer-funded, centrally organised mass official participation by thousands of civil servants in dozens of Pride marches across the country every summer.  ONGOING

​

Beedell & Stephenson v Bristol City Council

​​​

An important case regarding freedom of expression in a political context.  A judicial review of Bristol City Council concerning the lawfulness of its treatment of two members of the public who respectfully raised questions in Council meetings regarding the Council’s trans inclusion policy.  Both women were banned from City Hall for six months and one was removed from her position on the Remuneration Committee.  ONGOING

​

Bayswater v London Safeguarding Children’s Partnership

​​

The LCSP, a publicly funded body, was offering online training courses to safeguarding professionals and others which strongly promoted the affirmation of a child’s trans identity without any investigation or discussion thereof.  The training misrepresented the law and advocated for activism, in stark contrast to the careful and cautious approach of NHS Guidance, DFE Guidance and the Cass review.  It gave rise to grave safeguarding concerns but was marketed as a safeguarding course.  After receiving a letter from CGL on behalf of our clients, The Bayswater Support Group, the LSCP backed down and withdrew the course.  CONCLUDED

​

Ottley v The Arts Council England​

 

A judicial review claim against the Arts Council England, for allowing an organisation it funds to discriminate against those with gender critical views.  Her poem was initially accepted for The Aftershock Review but then withdrawn from publication, initially on grounds of her ‘social media presence’, although this consists only of promoting her own work and re-tweeting content from gender critical figures such as J K Rowling.  It was subsequently alleged that that her use of the term ‘crossdresser’ and ‘sissy porn’ (in a submission to a feminist conference, when describing her ex-husband’s activities) justified her being cancelled by the magazine. The reason given by the Arts Council is that such terms are not compatible with the magazine’s ‘sex positive’ policy.  Our client firmly believes it is the Arts Council’s duty as a public body to recognise such behaviour as discriminatory and to ensure that the organisations it funds, with public money, do not engage in such conduct.  ONGOING

​​