Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling
A court order, which was issued on Tuesday, confirms that taxpayers will cover costs incurred at both the Supreme Court and the Court of Session.
The Scottish Government has been ordered to pay costs and expenses to For Women Scotland after they brought a landmark legal case over the definition of a woman to the UK's highest court.
A court order, which was issued on Tuesday, confirms that taxpayers will cover costs incurred at both the Supreme Court and the Court of Session. Previously the campaign group said it expected to recoup about £250,000 of £417,000 it spent on the case in costs.
The Supreme Court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act in a unanimous decision last month. They concluded that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender.
For Woman Scotland revealed a screenshot of the court order - which marked the culmination of a legal dispute that began in 2017 - in a post on X. The dispute was sparked when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, aimed at boosting female representation.
The law was amended to include trans women — including those without a GRC — as 'women'. For Women Scotland challenged this. They argued that the definition conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women.
The group, after an initial defeat, won on appeal in 2022 as judges ruled that biological sex could not be redefined.
The Scottish Government then revised its guidance to state that GRC holders change their legal sex - however, For Women Scotland launched a second legal challenge, maintaining that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex.
The Outer House and the Inner House ruled in favour of Scottish Ministers - but the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those judgments.
The court order explicitly states that 'a person whose acquired gender is the female gender by virtue of a Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not come within the definition of 'woman' for the purposes of sections 11 and 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010'.
It adds the same clarification regarding trans men, before specifying that 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 'refers only to biological women'.
The order further states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of For Women Scotland.
Writing on X, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC said: "Final court order underlines clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success. Now indeed the rights of women (and LGB rights) 'merit some attention'."
The Conservative Party previously revealed through a freedom of information request that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated with the judicial review brought by the campaign group.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Perthshire MPs clash over short-term lets and second homes issue
The region has 1083 second homes and 1875 STL licences - 2958 combined or 3.89 per cent out of 76,136 dwellings. Perth and Kinross MSPs clashed this week over the issue of second homes and short term lets in the region which are more than twice the national average. Green MSP Mark Ruskell insisted tax rises on the wealthy would reduce the number of second homes and short-term lets and tackle the housing crisis, but Conservative Murdo Fraser said the solution was building more houses in rural areas and accused his Mid Scotland and Fife colleague of wishing to punish second home owners. According to Scottish Government 2024 figures second homes and short term lets in Perth and Kinross make up 3.9 per cent of all housing in the area - more than double the national average of 1.8 per cent. The region has 1083 second homes and 1875 STL licences - 2958 combined or 3.89 per cent out of 76,136 dwellings. As of March 2023 there were 3312 people on the application list for social housing in Perth and Kinross with an average of 1000 properties becoming available for rent each year. Mr Ruskell pointed out that tax rises on the wealthy would reduce the number of second homes and short-term lets in Perth and Kinross. He commented: 'The fact that we have just under 3,000 second homes and short term lets in Perth and Kinross, which is more than double the national average is a major reason why this crisis is so much worse locally. 'Wealthy people buying up properties they won't live in are pushing out young families in particular. 'These houses either lie empty for most of the year as holiday homes, or they are hoarded by landlords making a fortune from Airbnb-style short term lets. Either way, its first-time buyers who are pushed out by those with much more financial muscle. 'This is a crisis which can clearly be solved. We'll only do that by taking on the wealthy few, those who pay very little tax while hoovering up the houses which other people need. 'The Scottish Government must listen to us and act boldly to stop the hollowing out of our communities.' But Mr Fraser said: 'With their customary attachment to the politics of envy, the Scottish Greens want to punish second home owners by fleecing them for even more tax. 'This will do nothing to solve the housing crisis in rural areas, which can only be fixed by more house building in the private and social rented sectors - and this means a new policy approach in terms of planning, infrastructure and incentives. 'Sadly whilst the Greens were in Government in coalition with the SNP they did nothing to fix these fundamental issues, and instead now resort to cheap headlines.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said this week: 'Tackling the housing emergency remains an urgent priority for the Scottish Government and we are supporting local authorities to quickly identify properties and bring them back into use. 'We recognise that local areas have different housing needs, which is why we legislated to give councils the power to levy higher council tax on second homes and empty properties. 'Giving councils these levers can help create a fairer housing and taxation system and ensures they have the flexibility to strike the right balance in the use of housing to meet local needs and to support thriving communities. 'Our £3.7 million investment has so far brought almost 11,000 privately owned homes back into use since 2010 and we will invest a further £2 million next year to help councils unlock barriers and develop a targeted approach to empty homes.'
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump attacks conservative judges, Federalist Society. Why?
"I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges," Trump said on Truth Social. "I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations." With that, Trump shifted from being a Republican president with a strong legacy of appointing conservative judges to a Republican president with a growing legacy of attacking conservative judges. That's a bad sign for any of his upcoming judicial nominations. Trump turns on conservative legal movement he helped build Trump and former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, helped deliver Republicans a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court. A significant part of that effort was The Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization that advocates for an interpretation of the Constitution that adheres to its original meaning. During his first term, Trump's judicial picks were tightly curated by adviser Leonard Leo, then the executive vice president of The Federalist Society. Most notably, all three of Trump's Supreme Court picks - Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett - all had ties to the organization. Opinion: Vance is doing his best to help Trump tear down the Supreme Court These three justices had a hand in overturning Roe v. Wade, striking down unconstitutional firearm restrictions, striking down racist affirmative action practices, curbing the power of administrative state bureaucrats and blocking much of the illegal Biden agenda. Even beyond the Supreme Court, Trump nominated 226 federal judges during his first term, many of those nominations guided by Federalist Society advisers. When did Trump start to turn on conservative judges? While the beginning of this spiral happened when the Supreme Court refused to entertain his 2020 stolen election claims, things have accelerated in his second term. Now, originalist judges have halted Trump's unconstitutional trade policy and have ruled against parts of Trump's mass deportation attempts. Even so, Trump until now was reluctant to outright condemn The Federalist Society. After all, one of the high points of his conservative agenda was his redecorating of the American courts with top-tier judges. The track record of Federalist Society judges is nothing short of a resounding victory for conservatives and the single best accomplishment of Trump's first term in office. Opinion: Elon Musk is frustrated with Republicans wasting DOGE's effort to cut. So am I. None of that matters now. Trump despises those judges because their loyalty is to the Constitution, not to him. He cannot fathom the discipline or honor required to be committed to preserving America's founding documents, rather than his own self-interest. The partnership between the conservative legal movement and Trump was always a temporary one, and Republicans in Congress had to have known that. While Republicans used Trump to reach their goals within the conservative legal movement, they made the mistake of allowing him to undermine the very accomplishments they made in his first term. Trump's future judicial nominations have judges worried Data from Notre Dame Law professor Derek Muller shows that federal judges are retiring at a record-slow pace at the beginning of Trump's second term. Just 11 vacancies have opened up since January, likely because judges are thinking twice about retiring in the face of who may replace them. Trump's first slate of judicial nominees is taking longer than it did in his first term, with confirmation hearings to take place on June 4, according to Axios. There are also fewer vacancies compared with Trump's first term, when he was handed more than 100 on Day 1 as a result of a stubborn Republican Senate majority in President Barack Obama's second term. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Trump appears to be prioritizing his supporters in his early slate of judicial picks. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who has previously represented Trump personally, has been nominated to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Courtof Appeals and sparked some concern even among conservatives. Trump's early judicial picks will determine how comfortable more aging federal judges are with retiring under his second administration. Those committed to the Constitution are understandably worried about who may replace them, and his recent rhetoric does not help me feel better. As Trump's brand of the Republican Party drifts from most of the conservative values it once claimed to support, so too does his support for conservative legal philosophy. Now, anything that stands in the way of Trump is bad, even if it is conservative in ideology. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
Costly inquiries are all very well if we learn lessons from them
Lord Hardie's inquiry into the long and costly tram project cost £13 million Lord Hardie, the retired judge who chaired the nine-year long inquiry into Edinburgh's trams, admitted to MSPs last week that he was upset when he found out that the public were told about his £1 million pay cheque for his work on the investigation. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... He thought the revelation might lead to journalists 'pestering' him at home. As it turned out no-one, not even the most enthusiastic tabloid hack, knocked on his front door, so he was free to enjoy his post-retirement bonus with his family, unmolested by the press. As for the general public, well they had more things on their plate to worry about than Lord Hardie's bank balance – the cost of living crisis for a start. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Even more staggering than Lord Hardie's daily rate – set by the Scottish Government, which apparently has a fee schedule for retired judges – was the total cost of the inquiry itself. It cost tax payers £13 million, which works out about £1.5 million a year to produce a report that told us what we all knew any way. The 961-page report can be summed up in three points: the city council's original budget was way off track; the management of Tie – the arms-length company set up to deliver the tram system – was chaotic; and the Scottish Government ducked its responsibility for oversight of the project, despite giving it a £500 million grant. None of which came as surprise to any of us who had been subjected on a daily basis to the 'living hell' that was Edinburgh city centre during the construction of the (shortened) tram route. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So why did it take nine years and £13 million to come to the same conclusion the average Edinburgh citizen had reached only months after the work started? Lord Hardie's evidence was to Holyrood's finance and public administration committee, which recently established its own inquiry into the cost of public inquiries. Kenneth Gibson, the committee's convenor, hit the nail on the head when he said his inquiry had 'the potential to be a really interesting piece of work given the significant sums of money that public inquiries often involve.' There are four public inquiries ongoing in Scotland right now, looking at the Covid crisis, hospital safety, child abuse and the death of Sheku Bayoh. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So far the costs of these are estimated at a staggering £200 million. This is money the country can ill-afford to spend. How many social care staff would one public inquiry buy? Of course, public inquiries are important for finding out why bureaucrats bungled major capital projects such as the parliament building and Edinburgh's tram network, or what mistakes politicians made during a health crisis such as Covid. But they are not worth the reams of paper they are written on if no-one learns any lessons from them. Nor should any public inquiry take nine years. What on earth did Lord Hardie and his team find to ask questions about over a seven-year period? And why did it take two years to write the report? That works out at just over a page a day – which deserves a separate inquiry of its own.
