PUBLIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
This area concerns the decision-making and polices of public bodies and private bodies that work on behalf of the State. These bodies are obliged to act in accordance with established principles of fairness and human rights. If they fail to do so, their decisions and polices are unlawful and can be challenged in the High Court.
Smith v The FA
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
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
Our client has sent a pre-action protocol letter stating her intention to launch a judicial review 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 due to her ‘social media presence’. It is the Arts Council’s duty as a public body to take appropriate action to investigate and prevent public funds being used to enable discriminatory conduct. ONGOING
Amies & Montgomery v Secretary of State for Science
Our clients are two parents who are challenging the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology regarding the national consultation launched on 2 March 2026 entitled, ‘Growing Up in an Online World’. They allege that the consultation is neither fair nor rational because in two of the surveys, any child aged 10 or above or parent is required to accept the provider’s privacy policy. This gives the survey provider the power to share their personal data with Meta, Google and LinkedIn to improve the company’s ‘services and targeting’. Not only is it unlawful and unjustified to harvest data in this way, but the claimants also allege it will prevent many from participating and is likely to exclude those with the most valuable input, because they are the ones who have suffered harm at the hands of social media companies and will not trust them with personal data. ONGOING