High Court rejects challenge over trans access to ponds

The High Court has dismissed a legal challenge brought by the campaign group Sex Matters against rules allowing transgender people to use the single-sex bathing ponds at Hampstead Heath in line with the gender with which they identify, meaning the existing access arrangements will remain in place for now.

Sex Matters had sought a judicial review of the City of London Corporation’s admissions policy for the men’s pond, the ladies’ pond and the mixed pond on Hampstead Heath. The charity argued that permitting trans people to use the single-sex facilities associated with their gender identity amounted to unlawful sex discrimination.

In a ruling handed down on Thursday, Mrs Justice Lieven rejected the claim as being in the wrong forum, saying the dispute should be pursued through the county court rather than by judicial review in the High Court. The judge’s decision focused on procedure and jurisdiction rather than making a final determination on the underlying merits of the policy itself.

The case has drawn national attention because it follows a Supreme Court judgment last year that references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 should be interpreted as referring to biological sex. That ruling, in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, has been cited frequently in disputes about how single-sex services should operate in practice.

Supporters of the Hampstead Heath policy argue that trans-inclusive access reflects how many services already operate and provides clarity and dignity for users. Critics argue the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equality Act strengthens the case for sex-based access rules in some settings. The High Court’s decision this week does not settle that broader debate, but it does determine how challenges of this kind must be brought.

What the High Court decided

The judgment means Sex Matters cannot proceed via a High Court judicial review on the approach it chose. Reporting on the case indicates the judge considered the appropriate route would be a claim brought by an affected individual in the county court, rather than a challenge mounted as a judicial review by a campaigning organisation.

That procedural point matters because judicial review is normally used to challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies. The court’s view in this case was that the dispute should be tested through routes designed to deal with individual rights claims and factual disputes, rather than the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

The City of London Corporation also argued that it was in the middle of a policy review process, following public consultation, and has not yet reached a final decision on any changes to access arrangements. Coverage of the case suggests this was part of the wider context for the judge’s approach.

What happens at the ponds now

For swimmers and visitors, the immediate position remains unchanged. The City of London Corporation has said the current admissions policy will stay in place while it considers next steps, including the consultation results and its legal duties.

The City published the results of its consultation on future access arrangements on Thursday. It said more than 38,000 people responded, with 86% supporting keeping the ponds trans-inclusive. The City also reported that large majorities opposed measures such as requiring separate changing arrangements or separate sessions for trans swimmers.

A spokesperson for the City said the case had consumed “significant time and resources” that could otherwise have been used to manage Hampstead Heath and provide public services. The corporation said the findings of the consultation would be presented to its committees, alongside equality impact assessments, safeguarding considerations and operational issues, before a final decision is made.

Why the Supreme Court ruling matters here

The legal backdrop is the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers. In that case, the Supreme Court held that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” refer to biological sex.

Since then, the ruling has been widely discussed as service providers, public bodies and campaign groups argue over what the judgment means for single-sex services and spaces. The House of Commons Library has summarised the decision in a briefing, noting the Court’s conclusion on the interpretation of sex-based terms in the Act.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also published guidance in response to the judgment, emphasising that the Court’s ruling concerns how “sex” should be interpreted in the Equality Act framework.

It is important, however, not to overstate what this week’s Hampstead Heath ruling does. The High Court did not issue a definitive finding on whether the City’s admissions policy is lawful under equality law. Instead, it dismissed this particular challenge on procedural grounds, indicating the dispute should be pursued differently if an eligible claimant wishes to bring it.

Reaction and the political sensitivity of the issue

Campaign groups on both sides have treated the case as symbolic, not least because single-sex facilities sit at the centre of wider arguments about privacy, inclusion, safeguarding and how equality law should be applied in daily life. Sex Matters has argued the policy disadvantages women, while trans advocates have argued that inclusive arrangements are commonplace and that repeated litigation creates uncertainty for providers and users.

One trans advocacy group, TransLucent, criticised the challenge and said government should provide clearer legal direction so service providers can operate without costly court disputes.

The City’s next step is now an internal decision-making process. The corporation has said committees will consider the consultation evidence alongside legal requirements before any final policy change. Until then, it says the existing policy stands.

What to watch next

The most immediate practical question is whether an individual claimant will now bring a county court case testing the policy more directly. If that happens, the courts would be asked to engage more fully with the substance of the discrimination arguments and the factual issues around how the facilities operate.

Separately, the City of London Corporation’s committees will decide whether to amend the admissions policy at all, and if so, what form any changes should take. The consultation results suggest strong support for keeping current arrangements, but the corporation has also indicated it will weigh that against legal duties, safeguarding responsibilities and operational considerations.

For now, Thursday’s ruling does not end the national argument about how single-sex services should be run after the Supreme Court’s Equality Act interpretation. What it does do is narrow the pathway for legal challenges, making clear that the county court route may be the correct arena for resolving disputes of this type.