For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and Haynes v English Blackball Pool Federation: considerations for sports organisations

Co-authored with Ruth Kennedy of 11BKW.

Earlier this year, in a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (FWS) unanimously determined that the definitions of 'woman', 'man' and 'sex' for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) refer to biological sex. In this blog, we look at the first decision based on the application of the sports exemption under section 195 of the EA 2010 following FWS (in Haynes v Blackball Pool Federation) and outline the implications for sports organisations.

The sports exemption (section 195 of the EA 2010)

The EA 2010 acts as a prohibition against forms of discrimination by service providers, whether on the basis of sex or otherwise, unless it is for a good reason (where an exemption applies). Parliament decided that sport was one such good reason and permitted discrimination on the basis of sex to enable separate categories. Separation of sex is permitted where the activity in question is a 'gender-affected activity' (see section 195(1) of the EA 2010). A 'gender affected activity' is defined in section 195(3) of the EA 2010 in the following terms:

“A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.”

The Supreme Court’s judgment in FWS clarified that references to sex in the EA 2010, including in section 195(1) refer to biological sex. Prior to this, the EHRC guidance and sports organisations had proceeded on the basis that 'sex' meant certified sex, ie trans people who had obtained a gender recognition certificate. Where sports organisations had wished to exclude transgender athletes from the category of aligning with their gender, they had needed to show it was 'necessary' to either secure fair competition or for safety reasons (under section 195(2) of the EA 2010).

It was against this backdrop that Ms Haynes brought her claim against the English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF).

Background to Haynes v English Blackball Pool Federation [1]

The Claimant, Ms Haynes, was an expert player of English eight-ball pool and a trans woman. She held a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. She played for Kent women’s county A team.

On 27 August 2023, the EBPF announced a change in its rules so that only people who were born female would be permitted to play in its female competitions and teams. The change took effect on 3 December 2023.

Because of this rule change Ms Haynes could no longer play for her chosen women’s team. She claimed that this was direct discrimination against her on the grounds of gender reassignment.

The trial was heard by His Honour Judge Parker (the Judge) at Canterbury County Court between 7 and 11 April 2025. The judgment in FWS was handed down on 16 April 2025, after the trial finished. The Judge received written submissions on the effect of FWS.

Judgment

The Judge held that as Ms Haynes’ claim was for direct discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, the Supreme Court’s decision in FWS was an answer to the claim. This was because the Claimant had not brought a sex discrimination claim, or an indirect gender reassignment discrimination claim.

However, the Judge went on to consider the issue of whether pool was a 'gender affected activity' and whether the exclusion of male to female transgender individuals from the women’s category was “necessary to secure fair competition.”

While this County Court decision has limited authoritative effect for future cases, the analysis is likely to be useful for other sports organisations assessing whether they operate a gender affected activity.

Gender affected activity

Ms Haynes argued that pool was not a gender affected activity (and so could not benefit from the exemption in section 195); the EBPF argued to the contrary.  

Prior to this case there had been limited judicial consideration as to what 'gender affected activity' is. There was an old decision Bennett v the Football Association in 1978, under s. 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (which broadly reflects the content of section 195(3)), where Lord Denning held that football was a gender affected activity. But there was limited consideration of what analysis of a “gender affected activity” required.

The Judge held:

• That even a “small advantage” on the part of biological men means that a sport or activity is gender affected. [2]
• In comparing average persons of each sex, the court is required to consider and compare individuals who are “reasonably experienced in the relevant sport game or activity.” [3]

Both parties used expert evidence in support of their respective positions in two fields: (1) physics and engineering; and (2) biology.

Both experts in physics and engineering accepted the importance of the break shot upon the outcome of a game. The question was then whether the average man, who was reasonably experienced at pool, would have at least a “small advantage” over the average woman. The Claimant’s expert (Professor Formaggio) used simulations and modelling of the break shot to try and suggest that the average man would not. In contrast, the Defendant’s expert (Dr Alciatore) drew from his experience of playing and teaching pool at a high level. The Judge held that the Defendant’s expert’s evidence was more persuasive. At paragraph 233 of the Judgment he stated:

“Professor Formaggio’s views rely on computer simulations. Dr Alciatore’s views are substantially based on his direct experience. Reality is messy; one of the risks involved in simulating it is that the modelling programme may be oversimplified. It seems to me that this is likely to be the case here.”

The experts in biology both accepted that men on average have longer arms, larger hands and longer fingers.[4] However, the Claimant’s expert (Dr Hamilton) sought to argue that this did not translate into an advantage on the part of the average male pool player.

The Judge concluded that the “lesser strength and reach put the average woman at a disadvantage when competing against the average man at English eight-ball pool.”[5] In short, the Judge concluded that pool is a gender affected activity.

What does this mean for sports organisations and competitors?

As set out above, this decision has limited precedential effect for future claims. However, it acts as a useful guide as to how one judge approached the issues in a number of respects.

First, the decision highlights the type of expert evidence that it may be necessary to adduce in order to support or defend a claim for sex discrimination. The decision suggests that when selecting experts, it may be useful to find a technical expert who also has experience of playing the sport or activity to a high level. This enabled the Defendant’s expert to map his technical knowledge onto his experience as to how the game was best played.

Secondly, if other judges follow the approach taken by the Judge, then it is likely that 'gender affected' sports and activities will be expansive. Anything involving physicality where someone with longer limbs and bigger bodies has even a small advantage is likely to be found to be a gender affected activity.

Thirdly, it is a reminder to think carefully about how experts in different fields fit together. In this case, the Claimant’s engineering and physics expert accepted that the break shot had an important impact on the game, whereas her biology expert contested this. Both purported to have relevant expertise in this important area. Where experts for one party disagree, this can undermine the force of their evidence in other areas.  

Conclusion

The decision in Haynes v English Blackball Pool Federation marks a significant moment for sports organisations navigating the complexities of equality law following the FWS decision. It provides us with some clarity on the interpretation of the sports exemption under section 195 of the Equality Act 2010 and sets a practical framework for assessing whether an activity is 'gender affected'. While the judgment has limited precedential effect, its detailed analysis offers valuable guidance for governing bodies seeking to balance inclusivity with fair competition, and underscores the importance of robust, evidence-based decision-making in policy development.

[1] Haynes v Thomson and Goodwin (on behalf of the English Blackball Pool Federation, an unincorporated association), K01CT207, 1 August 2025.

[2] See paragraph 131

[3] Paragraph 138

[4] Paragraph 193

[5] Paragraph 250

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Farrer & Co LLP, September 2025