Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling over definition of ‘woman'
It comes after a three-year battle from feminist campaigners
FOOT THE BILL Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling over definition of 'woman'
THE Scottish Government has been ordered to cough up costs to feminist campaigners after losing a high-profile legal fight over the definition of a woman.
Taxpayers are set to foot the bill, with For Women Scotland (FWS) expecting to recover around £250,000 of the £417,000 spent on the gruelling three-year court battle.
Advertisement
4
Marion Calder, right, and Susan Smith, left, from For Women Scotland, celebrate outside after the U.K. Supreme Court
Credit: AP
4
A court order has ruled the Scottish Government must pay FWS's costs and expenses
Credit: Rex
4
The decision has sparked outrage amongst transgender communities
Credit: Lesley Martin 2025
A court order issued on Tuesday confirmed the payout, which covers expenses from both the Court of Session and the UK Supreme Court.
Last month, FWS emerged victorious when five Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled that the Equality Act defines a 'woman' as based on biological sex – a major blow to the Scottish Government's stance.
The ruling also confirmed that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex under the Equality Act.
The legal saga began in 2017 when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, designed to boost female representation.
Advertisement
The legislation controversially included trans women – even those without a GRC – under the definition of 'women.'
Outraged by the move, FWS argued the definition clashed with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women.
Despite an initial defeat, they won on appeal in 2022, with judges declaring that biological sex could not be redefined.
The Scottish Government revised its guidance, while claiming GRC holders change their legal sex.
Advertisement
FWS made another legal challenge, insisting that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers strictly to biological sex – a position now upheld by the Supreme Court.
Today's order 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 FWS.
The Scottish Conservative Party previously revealed with a Freedom of Information request that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated FWS's judicial review.
Advertisement
And former SNP MP Joanna Cherry wrote on X, said the order: 'underlines the clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
26 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Fergus Ewing: Can veteran Nationalist beat the SNP at Scottish election and win as an independent?
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, 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... No family has contributed more to the SNP and the independence cause than the Ewing family. That was the view of James Mitchell, professor of public policy at Edinburgh University and an expert on the party, when I spoke to him back in March for an article about this extraordinary political dynasty. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Winnie Ewing's victory in Hamilton in 1967 remains one of the defining moments of modern Scottish nationalism. Her son, Fergus, has now set the scene for another remarkable election battle. Fergus Ewing, pictured in the Scottish Parliament | PA His announcement that he will run as an independent in Inverness and Nairn next year, standing against the party he has represented in Holyrood since 1999, will cause real concern in the SNP hierarchy. Mr Ewing, who secured a majority of 9,114 in 2021, has been an outspoken critic of the Scottish Government on a number of issues, not least the lack of progress on dualling the A9 and A96 roads. He is viewed as a strong local champion, regardless of whether or not you agree with him. He told The Scotsman he is going to put 'everything' into the fight. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Fergus Ewing | Colin D Fisher/ 'Two Fridays ago, it took me two hours to get through Morrisons to do some shopping for four items, and I wasn't swithering in the aisles,' he said. 'It was just people wanting to speak to me. 'It's easy to overestimate one's own personal popularity, but I did get a majority of around nine [thousand] or 10,000 for the past three elections and I think I'm in with for a shout. But let the people decide.' Can Mr Ewing pull it off? Only three MSPs have ever won on an independent platform. Dennis Canavan scored a spectacular victory in 1999, and again in 2003, after being rejected as a Labour candidate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Margo MacDonald was repeatedly elected as an independent list MSP after falling out with the SNP, while Jean Turner won Strathkelvin and Bearsden in 2003 following a very specific local campaign centred on Stobhill Hospital. 'I think he's got a good chance,' said Prof Mitchell. 'Not least because a lot of the issues on which he has spoken out against the Government, on which he has been rebellious, have been related to his constituency. 'He has in that sense been a very, very good constituency member, and that can only help him. What is certainly the case is it's going to damage the SNP, of that there is no doubt.' Mr Ewing has been campaigning all his life, said Prof Mitchell, while he may also benefit from his family name. His mother was strongly associated with the Highlands and islands. The media interest during the campaign will also help, of course. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'He will have some support in the SNP membership and among the activists as well, so that would not be insignificant,' Prof Mitchell added. Emma Roddick, who is a list MSP for the Highlands and Islands, has been selected as the SNP candidate for Inverness and Nairn. She was previously a junior minister, but does not enjoy anywhere near the profile of Mr Ewing.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump toy tariffs: Supreme Court won't speed decision on challenge
More: Hasbro layoffs: Toymaker restructures due to tariff struggles and weak demand The company, which makes educational toys, won a court ruling on May 29 that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency legal authority he had cited for them. That ruling is currently on hold, leaving the tariffs in place for now. Learning Resources asked the Supreme Court to take the rare step of immediately hearing the case to decide the legality of the tariffs, effectively leapfrogging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, where the case is pending. More: 'Two dolls instead of 30': Trump acknowledges prices will force consumers to cut back More: Second federal court blocks Trump tariffs, this time for Illinois toy importers Two district courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs are not justified under the law he cited for them, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both of those cases are on appeal. No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson questions if `monied interests' are favored by court
Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a "troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals - Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. "And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's "remarkably lenient approach" to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the "stern stance" it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls "In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing," Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. "The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders," he wrote.
