This case is one of the first court decisions dealing with transgender issues since the Supreme Courts ruling in For Women Scotland -v- Scottish Ministers (FWS) in which the court confirmed that words such as ‘sex’, ‘woman’, ‘male’ in the Equality Act 2010 referred exclusively to biological women, men and sex.
The Claimant, Harriet Haynes, was a professional English eight-ball pool player and trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
In August 2023 the English Blackball Pool federation (EBPF) banned players who were not born biologically female from its women’s competitions and teams. This meant that the Claimant could no longer play for the EBPF Kent women’s county A team.
In Haynes -v- The English Blackball Pool Federation (2025), the Claimant took EBPF to court alleging direct discrimination against her on the grounds of gender reassignment, in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
The EBPF denied this and argued that players who were born male and went through male puberty have specific physical advantages in cue sports, such as an ability to generate higher break speed, greater hand span to bridge over balls and a longer reach.
The trial stook place in April 2025. Five days after the trial concluded, the SUPREME Court delivered its judgment in FWS. This profoundly impacted the legal argument in the case concerning the meaning of ‘sex’.
The claim was dismissed. Following FWS, the Claimant was a trans woman, therefore legally considered a biological male, irrespective of her GRC.
It was found that there was no gender reassignment discrimination but there was discrimination on the grounds of sex, however, as that claim was not pleaded, her claim failed. The correct comparator was a biological man, who would also have been excluded from the female category for pool teams and competitions. A court judge has said he is satisfied exclusion was the only “reasonable” way to ensure “fair competition”. The court also concluded that excluding biological males from the female category was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Fairness of competition is undoubtedly a legitimate aim, and if (as the court accepted) exclusion is necessary to achieve fairness then it must be a proportionate means of doing so.
The court went on to consider the sports exception under s.195 EqA and the single sex services exception under paragraph 28 of Schedule 3 to the EqA. The sports exception states that less favourable treatment based on gender assignment by service providers is permitted in ‘gender-affected activity’ if it is ‘necessary to do so to secure… (a) fair competition or (b) the safety of competitors’. The court concluded that pool is a ‘gender-affected activity’ and that excluding biological males from the female category is necessary to secure fair competition as the average male has sex-related advantages in the sport over the average female. In so doing, the court set a fairly low bar for ‘gender-affected activity’.
His Honour Judge Parker said pool is a “gender-affected activity” and that excluding those born as male from the female category was necessary to “secure fair competition”.
She also claimed the policy violated the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to respect for an individual’s private and family life, which was rejected by the court.
It is understood that the Claimant’s representatives are considering an appeal but the court state that any future application for permission to appeal would most likely be refused, as there was no real prospect of success.
This case helps to clarify the direct impact of FWS on the legal landscape going forward, confirming that ‘sex’ under the Equality Act 2010 is to be interpreted as biological sex for all purposes, including sports.
Louise Brenlund is a Partner and Head of the Employment Law Team at Warners Solicitors. For further information relating to the above, or for employment or education law, please contact Louise at [email protected] or on 01732 770660.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note the law may have changed since this article was published. We do not accept responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the information in this article.
