1. Higgs -v- Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109
Oh look, they’re using the same arguments to promote homophobia as they used to promote transphobia:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/higgs-v-farmors-school/
Oh look, they’re using the same arguments to promote homophobia as they used to promote transphobia:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/higgs-v-farmors-school/
Comments
The summary on page 55 seems useful, but i question whether what is "objectionable" can ever be "objectively determined" when what is objectionable is almost always going to be subjective, cultural & contextual
Shocked, I am. Shocked!
Sexuality critical.
Almost like they were only run for fundraising and propaganda purposes and not because they were real legal arguments.
Direct harassment? On what grounds? The claimant has already admitted that she harassed Dr Upton.
It sounds silly and irrelevant (and it is) but the idea is likely to be to claim a win on the basis of something tiny and technical in order to give credence to the dropped claims.
The EAT decision is more helpful as it gives a playbook for firing bigots.
This is just another pointless retread of why Forstater is wrong.
That’s what this case does…