A County Court has ruled that a veterinary practice unlawfully discriminated against a longstanding customer because of her protected gender-critical beliefs, in a judgment that strengthens legal protections for such beliefs and extends them into the realm of consumer services.
Allison Bailey, a retired criminal barrister and co-founder of the LGB Alliance, brought a claim against Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd – trading as Palmerston Veterinary Group – after she was expelled as a client from its Walthamstow practice in January 2023. The clinic claimed Bailey had been “rude” and “aggressive” towards staff. But in a 44-page ruling, Judge Holmes found her gender-critical beliefs were a material factor in the decision, rendering the expulsion unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.
Bailey had been a client for thirteen years. She told the court she was shocked to receive a letter sent in the name of Dr Liz Munro, the clinic’s clinical director, informing her that the practice was ending their relationship due to a breakdown in “mutual trust and confidence”. The judge found that rationale not only procedurally flawed – no warnings were issued, and only two other clients had been expelled in five years, both for far more serious misconduct – but also coloured by a clear discomfort with Bailey’s beliefs.
Those beliefs – that sex is real, binary and immutable – are, in the parlance of the Equality Act, protected as a form of philosophical conviction. And they were hardly secret. Bailey had come to national attention the previous year after winning part of a high-profile discrimination case against her former chambers, Garden Court. At its heart was her objection to the chambers’ formal relationship with Stonewall, and her criticism of the charity’s promotion of gender identity theory, which holds that it is not biological sex, but a person’s self-declared gender, that should determine how they are classified and treated in law and public institutions.
“There is strong evidence that Ms Bailey’s gender-critical beliefs were known within the practice,” the judge concluded. “On balance it is likely that Dr Munro knew about Ms Bailey’s gender-critical beliefs before she was involved in taking the decision to terminate” the relationship.
The ruling describes “a culture within the practice which was contrary to Ms Bailey’s gender-critical views”, and finds that “at least one of the things that people disliked about her was her belief”.
The court heard that Dr Munro had previously circulated a language guide from a trans activist website, which stated it was wrong to say a trans person had “changed gender”, and instead described them as having “changed presentation” and always having been their declared identity. Dr Munro accepted in evidence that following such guidance would prevent others from expressing a contrary view.
When asked whether she regarded gender-critical beliefs as bigoted, Dr Munro hesitated, eventually replying that she “was not sure she would go as far as to use the word bigot, but maybe she would”. Commenting on the exchange, Judge Holmes observed drily: “If Dr Munro was hesitant to go as far as to use the word bigot; she was just a hair’s breadth away from it.”
While the court accepted that some staff had found Bailey direct, or even confrontational, it concluded that her behaviour did not warrant expulsion, and that the clinic’s zero-tolerance policy on abusive conduct had not been consistently applied. The judge noted that the clinic had failed to follow its own guidance, which described removal as “an exceptional and rare event” and “a last resort” save in cases of violence.
He was also critical of the clinic’s denial of any awareness of Bailey’s beliefs, her high-profile legal case, or her friendship with J.K. Rowling. These denials were, he wrote, “unconvincing”.
So unconvincing, in fact, that he accepted Bailey’s account: her views had been discussed within the practice and viewed unfavourably by those involved in her removal. Gossip about her friendship with Rowling – described by the judge as “one of the most famous people in the country” – had, he noted, “spread around the practice quickly”.
The case was brought under the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics, including “belief” defined under Section 10 as any religious or philosophical conviction. In 2021, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled in Forstater v CGD Europe that gender-critical beliefs meet that threshold, in a case arising from a workplace discrimination claim. The Bailey judgment is the first to apply that principle to the provision of goods and services, confirming that such beliefs are protected not only in the workplace but also – under Section 29 – in consumer settings.
Applying the statutory test for discrimination, Judge Holmes found that Bailey had presented sufficient evidence for the court to infer her beliefs were a factor in the decision to terminate services. The burden then shifted to the practice to prove otherwise – something it failed to do. “Far from being satisfied by the defendant that this played no part in the decision,” the judge wrote, “I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a culture within the practice which was contrary to Ms Bailey’s gender-critical views.”
Bailey, who is seeking £25,000 in damages, said she hoped the judgment would embolden others who had faced similar treatment. “I never went to the vet to talk about issues around sex and gender. I would not have dreamed of doing so. They raised it with me, and made me the subject of internal gossip as a result. I was given no warning and no indication that I might be expelled.”
The case, she added, was emblematic of a wider problem: “As many gender-critical women will know, this is all too often the case where anyone expresses a view in support of the rights of women and LGB people that conflicts with the views of trans rights activists and an increasingly authoritarian LGBTQ+ lobby.”
Her solicitor, Peter Daly of Doyle Clayton described the ruling as a significant legal development, and a warning to service providers. “This is a case which shows that an unquestioning acceptance of gender identity dogma, far from being an anti-discriminatory or ‘kind’ measure, can in fact lead businesses into unlawful discrimination.”
A hearing to determine damages will take place later this year.
