Nina Dillon Britton

On 16 April 2025, in a unanimous decision, the UK Supreme Court found that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (UK), ‘sex’ means one’s biological sex at birth and ‘women’ means only people who were female sex at birth: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. The Court rejected the Scottish Ministers’ contention that transgender women with gender recognition certificates were ‘women’ for the purposes of the Equality Act (as well as the corollary, that ‘men’ included transgender men with such certificates). The effects of the Supreme Court’s decision will be deeply felt by transgender people in the UK, and the judgment will no doubt be subject to significant critical analysis.

This blog post concerns the question of whether the ruling in For Women Scotland has relevance in Australia, and particularly whether it might influence Australian courts in interpreting the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)—the rough federal equivalent to the Equality Act. The issue is a live one. Last year, the construction of the words ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ were considered in the context of a gender identity discrimination claim brought by a transgender woman against an app marketed as ‘female-only’: Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960 (Tickle v Giggle (No 2)). The Federal Court’s conclusion that ‘sex’ (in its ordinary meaning) was changeable, and thus that the complainant’s discrimination claim was successful, is currently under appeal. Similar questions of construction have also been raised in a decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal to uphold a decision by the Australian Human Rights Commission not to grant an exemption to a lesbian group, which sought to hold events that would exclude transgender women: Lesbian Action Group and Australian Human Rights Commission [2025] ARTA 34. That decision is currently the subject of a judicial review application in the Federal Court.

Patrick Hossack

On the outskirts of Hobart Airport, where Holyman Avenue and Cranston Road meet the Tasman Highway, construction is set to begin on a new interchange. A Parliamentary Committee has considered and reported on the plans, clearing the way for work to begin. An aggrieved resident, claiming an interest in land adjacent to Cranston Parade, alleges that the works to be undertaken are not in fact the works that were considered by the Committee—the costs don’t add up, the roundabouts are absent, the works are in fact unlawful. This resident takes action against the contractors to prevent them proceeding. The State intervenes, seeking in turn to prevent the Court interrogating the contents of the Committee report to ascertain if the works contained within it are those same works currently taking place on the outskirts of Hobart Airport. The Committee has reported, and there can be no assessment of the contents of that report to contrast with the actual bitumen being laid under its auspices—even if the roundabouts are missing.

William Isdale and Nicholas Simoes da Silva

Last year marked the 120th anniversary of the Commonwealth statute book – an anniversary that offers an opportunity to reflect on the house of law we have built. There is much to be proud of: a house constructed from the timbers of Parliamentary sovereignty, with strong constitutional foundations.

Joseph McDonald

On 1 September 2021, the High Court handed down its judgment on a novel question of statutory interpretation in Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 [2021] HCA 26 (DPP Reference No 1). The question for the Full Court was the interpretation of s 17 of the Crimes Act 1958 ...

Alan Robertson SC

Dr Amanda Sapienza’s Judicial Review of Non-Statutory Executive Action is an important work because it has as its centre of attention non-statutory executive action, rather than dealing with it, however well, in a more general context of public law. In this second category I would include, for …

Benedict Coxon

On 1 January 2020, the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (QHRA) entered fully into force, including the interpretive provision contained in s 48, which was modelled on s 32 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (Charter) and s 30 of the Human Rights …

Ellen Rock

In May of this year, Bromberg J in the Federal Court handed down a key decision in climate change litigation which has made waves both within Australia and internationally. Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560 was a negligence claim commenced in connection with an application to expand …