A judge has ruled that a charity’s legal challenge regarding regulations permitting transgender individuals to access single-sex facilities at the swimming ponds in Hampstead Heath cannot advance in the High Court.

The organization Sex Matters initiated legal proceedings against the City of London Corporation, the managing authority of the men’s, women’s, and mixed bathing ponds in north London.

They asserted that the policy permitting trans individuals to use facilities corresponding to their identified gender constituted sex discrimination.

However, Mrs. Justice Lieven rejected the challenge, determining that the “appropriate forum” for the case is the county court rather than the High Court.

Sex Matters sought a judicial review, contending that the policy in question was unlawful following an April 2025 Supreme Court decision which stated that a woman is defined by her biological sex according to the 2010 Equality Act.

During a December hearing, Tom Cross KC, representing the charity, argued that the existing rules treat women “less favourably” compared to men, as they face “greater risk of having their privacy, dignity or safety compromised.”

He called for a reevaluation of the corporation’s policy in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

On the other hand, Daniel Stilitz KC, representing the corporation, argued that the claim should be dismissed due to its timeliness, as the policy has been in effect since 2017.

He characterized the legal action as “unhelpful, premature, and the wrong approach to addressing these matters.”

A recent consultation conducted by the City of London Corporation revealed that nearly 90% of respondents supported trans-inclusive access to the ponds.

Over a two-month period, more than 38,000 people participated in the consultation, with 84% indicating they had used the bathing ponds and 74% residing in London, according to the City of London.

Six options were deliberated regarding the Kenwood Ladies, Highgate Men’s, and Hampstead mixed ponds, with 86% of responses favoring the existing trans-inclusive access policy.

A similarly high percentage opposed the introduction of strict single-sex access, while 90% rejected the notion of mandating trans swimmers to utilize separate changing facilities or designated swimming sessions; 66% were against the idea of converting all ponds to mixed sex.

Sex Matters expressed disappointment with the ruling and indicated it was exploring its legal alternatives.

Maya Forstater, CEO of the organization, stated, “The struggle for women’s safety, privacy, and dignity in single-sex spaces will persist. Although this specific claim was dismissed on procedural grounds, it does not give service providers permission to admit trans-identifying males into women’s facilities.”

She went on to criticize the City’s policy and its reluctance to uphold the lawfulness of that policy in court, suggesting it unfairly shifts the burden of potential harassment and legal costs onto individual women and staff members.

TransLucent, an advocacy and human rights group led by trans individuals, condemned the use of taxpayer resources on ongoing legal actions by a wealthy minority intent on excluding trans individuals, which they argue disrupts feminist efforts while more pressing issues face women daily.

“Trans inclusion is standard practice nationwide; the government must now ensure clear legal guidance that empowers service providers to act inclusively without being susceptible to expensive litigation,” they stated.

A representative of the City of London Corporation remarked, “We acknowledge the court’s ruling.”

They noted that this case demanded considerable time and resources that could have been directed towards the management of Hampstead Heath as a charity and the delivery of high-quality public services.

The organization has now shared the results of a consultation regarding future access policies for the heath’s bathing ponds.

These findings will be evaluated by the City Corporation committees, taking into account legal obligations, equality assessments, safeguarding duties, and operational factors.

In the meantime, the current admission policies will remain until a final decision is made by committee members.

Further updates will be provided in due course.