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. Swift J rejected the challenge, holding that the EHRC  had not misstated the law and its interim update was lawful, and that the law did not infringe the claimants’ ECHR rights.  The GLP was found to lack standing.  Permission to appeal was sought by GLP but refused.  CONCLUDED

​

Christian Institute v Civil Service

​​

A judicial review claim against Andy Burnham as the head of the Civil Service and against the Cabinet Office for serious breaches of the duty of impartiality owed by civil servants in connection with participation in annual Pride marches.  Every year the Civil Service organises, and pays for using taxpayers’ money, official representation by thousands of civil servants at Pride marches around the country.  This case focusses on participation in the Birmingham march.  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.  Permission to proceed to judicial review has been granted and the hearing is in November.  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​​

​

Legal Challenge to Project Spire​

 

A legal challenge to the use of s.106 of the Charities Act 2011 which allows the Charity Commission, the Attorney General or the Court to authorise ex gratia payments only where trustees can reasonably be regarded as being under a ‘moral obligation’ to make the payment as defined in Re Snowden [1970] Ch 700 and subsequent authorities. The Claimants argue that the proposed £100m payment by the Church Commissioners in relation to Project Spire does not meet the legal threshold for a ‘moral obligation’ and would amount to an unlawful change of charitable purpose.  The claim is seeking a declaration that (1) neither the Charity Commission, Attorney General nor the Court have power under s.106 to authorise the proposed payment; and (2) no other legal mechanism could authorise it.  They are further seeking an injunction to prevent the Church of England Commissioners from making the application or spending further funds on Project Spire.  This case tests the limits of ex-gratia payments in charity law and raises questions about governance and accountability in major national institutions.  It may set a precedent for how charities address historic-harm narratives.  ONGOING