Haynes v The English Blackball Pool Association

Haynes v The English Blackball Pool Association Claim no. K01CT207

Facts

This case involved a claim brought by Harriet Haynes, an expert player of English eight-ball pool and a trans woman, against Paul Thomson and Anna Goodwin, the Chairman and Secretary of the English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF). Ms. Haynes holds a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The EBPF is a non-profit, volunteer-run organisation that organises pool competitions, including specific competitions for women’s teams.

In August 2023, the EBPF announced a change to its rules, effective from December 2023, which stated that only individuals who were born female would be permitted to play in its female competitions and teams. This rule change directly prevented Ms. Haynes from continuing to play for the EBPF Kent women’s county A team, a role she would otherwise have maintained.

Ms. Haynes alleged that this exclusion constituted direct discrimination against her on the grounds of gender reassignment, in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). The Defendants, the EBPF, denied this, asserting that the Claimant was excluded because she was born male, and therefore, the exclusion was discrimination on grounds of sex, not gender reassignment. They also raised alternative defences, arguing that pool is a "gender-affected activity" under the EA 2010, and the rule change was necessary to secure fair competition, or that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The trial took place in April 2025. Five days after the trial concluded, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (FWS), which profoundly impacted the legal arguments in this case, particularly concerning the meaning of "sex" in the EA 2010.

Held

The court dismissed Ms. Haynes’ claim, concluding that it could not succeed following the Supreme Court’s judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (FWS).

The central finding was that, in light of FWS, the terms "sex," "woman," and "man" in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) refer to biological sex. Consequently, for the purposes of the EA 2010, Ms. Haynes, a trans woman, is legally considered to be a biological male, irrespective of her Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

The court ruled that Ms. Haynes' exclusion from women’s competitions was therefore discrimination on the grounds of sex (biological sex), not gender reassignment discrimination. As Ms. Haynes had only pleaded a claim for gender reassignment discrimination and not sex discrimination, her claim failed.

While not determinative of the outcome, the court also made findings on the EBPF’s alternative defences. It concluded that English eight-ball pool is a "gender-affected activity" as defined in s195(3) of the EA 2010. This was based on evidence that the physical strength and reach of average persons of one sex (women) would disadvantage them against average persons of the other sex (men) in competitive play, particularly regarding power shots like the break shot. Furthermore, had the claim been for gender reassignment discrimination, the court found that the exclusion of trans women from female English eight-ball pool would have been justified under s195(2) of the EA 2010 as necessary to secure fair competition.

Comment

The judgment in Haynes v The English Blackball Pool Association serves as an immediate application of the Supreme Court's ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (FWS). The case clarifies the direct impact of FWS, confirming that "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) is to be interpreted as biological sex for all purposes, including in sports.

The court explicitly rejected the Claimant’s argument that her exclusion constituted gender reassignment discrimination. It reasoned that the EBPF’s rule, by excluding individuals born male from female competitions, was acting on the basis of biological sex, which, post-FWS, means Ms. Haynes was excluded due to her biological male sex, despite her acquired gender and GRC. This outcome underscores that while trans individuals are protected from gender reassignment discrimination, issues directly pertaining to single-sex provisions based on biological sex fall under sex discrimination. The court also noted that the characteristic of gender reassignment is not rendered "worthless" by this interpretation, as protections for trans people against discrimination remain robust in other contexts.

The detailed, albeit non-determinative, analysis of English eight-ball pool as a "gender-affected activity" is significant. The court's assessment, drawing on expert evidence in physics, engineering, and biology, concluded that average men possess advantages in strength and reach over average women relevant to the game, particularly for powerful shots. This scientific and experiential evidence supported the finding that maintaining single-sex categories for biological women in such sports can be justified on grounds of fair competition. The court also considered, and ultimately rejected, the viability of alternative measures like testosterone testing or handicap systems as adequate means to ensure fairness, given the complexities and variabilities of physical attributes.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the Claimant’s arguments concerning the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), specifically Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court, as a County Court, affirmed its binding obligation to follow the Supreme Court's precedent in FWS. It deemed it highly improbable that a higher court would grant a declaration of incompatibility, distinguishing Ms. Haynes' case from historical rulings like Goodwin v The United Kingdom by highlighting the current legal recognition of acquired gender and the existence of anti-discrimination protections for trans people. The court viewed Ms. Haynes’ complaint as a specific issue about participation in a particular sporting category, rather than a fundamental denial of identity or legal recognition.

In essence, this case clarifies the legal landscape post-FWS, affirming the primacy of biological sex in interpreting certain provisions of the EA 2010, particularly in the context of single-sex sports, and outlining the potential justifications for exclusionary policies based on fairness in gender-affected activities.