W v Gender Recognition Panel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Family Division |
| Year | 2026 |
2025 July 8, 9; Oct 17
Gender - Gender recognition certificate - Living in the other gender - Applicant applying for gender recognition certificate on basis of living in male gender - Whether applicant’s past and continuing efforts to conceive and give birth inconsistent with living in male gender -
The applicant, who had been assigned female at birth, applied under section 1(1)(a) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004F1 for a gender recognition certificate on the basis of living in the male gender. While the applicant provided evidence that he had lived in the male gender for the past 8½ years and declared that he intended to continue to live in the male gender for the rest of his life, he had undertaken a number of unsuccessful IVF treatments to become pregnant, including within the previous two years, and still hoped to conceive and carry a baby in the future. The Gender Recognition Panel refused the applicant’s application on the basis that it was not satisfied that he had “lived in the acquired gender” for the past two years, as required by section 2(1)(b) of the 2004 Act, or that he intended to continue to “live in the acquired gender” until death, as required by section 2(1)(c) of that Act, stating that pregnancy was a fundamentally female biological function which was inconsistent with living in the male gender.
On appeal by the applicant—
Held, allowing the appeal, that on an application under section 1(1)(a) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 for a gender recognition certificate on the basis of living in the other gender, some aspects of biological sex such as childbearing and reproductive issues would always be relevant when determining whether the applicant had “lived in the acquired gender” and intended to continue to “live in the acquired gender” for the purposes of section 2(1)(b) and (c) of that Act, in so far as they illuminated whether the applicant had a genuine and enduring adoption of the acquired gender; that, however, childbearing itself was not inherently inconsistent with living in the male gender for the purposes of section 2(1)(b) and (c); that, in particular, (i) to hold otherwise would, at the very least, be difficult to reconcile with the state’s obligations under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ii) the 2004 Act provided for a permissive regime that was designed to facilitate gender recognition, (iii) established authorities showed that it was medically and legally possible for an individual whose gender was recognised in law as male to become pregnant and give birth to his child and (iv) living in an acquired gender was a subtle and nuanced concept; that, therefore, in the present case the Gender Recognition Panel had erred in treating the applicant’s taking of steps to conceive and continued desire to give birth to a child as determinative of whether the requirements of section 2(1)(b) and (c) were met, rather than reaching a multifactorial decision; that, applying the proper approach, the requirements of section 2(1)(b) and (c) were met, there being nothing further that the applicant could do to reconcile his clear and settled identification as a male and his desire to have a family; and that, accordingly, the applicant’s application would be allowed and a gender recognition certificate issued (post, paras 49–51, 56–59, 68, 72, 75, 83, 93).
Per curiam. On an appeal under section 8(1) of the 2004 Act against a decision of the Gender Recognition Panel, section 8(2) appears to devolve to the appellant the decision whether the appeal is “heard in private”. Having regard to the principles of transparency, “private” should be interpreted as including where journalists and legal bloggers are permitted to report on what they witness in court and request documents provided the names of the parties are anonymised (post, paras 13–14).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
AB v Gender Recognition Panel
AP, Garçon and Nicot v France (Application Nos 79885/12, 52471/13 and 52596/13) (unreported) 6 April 2017,
Bellinger v Bellinger
Carpenter v Secretary of State for Justice
Distinctive Properties (Ascot) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers
Goodwin v United Kingdom (Application No 28957/95) (
Jay v Secretary of State for Justice
Local Authority v W
R (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
R (Castellucci) v Gender Recognition Panel
R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (TT) v Registrar General for England and Wales
S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication), In re
APPEAL from the Gender Recognition Panel
By a notice of appeal the applicant, W, appealed against the decision of the Gender Recognition Panel dated 3 February 2025, set out in a decision letter sent to the applicant on 21 February 2025, refusing to issue a gender recognition certificate under section 1(1)(a) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 following an oral hearing on 20 August 2024. An advocate to the court was appointed by the Attorney General but the panel did not participate in the appeal process.
Despite a procedural error that was fatal to the integrity of the panel’s decision, the court decided not to remit the matter but to determine the point of law raised by ground 1 of the appeal, namely that the panel had erred in concluding that the desire to become pregnant, the taking of steps to facilitate a pregnancy, or becoming pregnant was “inconsistent with living in the male gender” for the purposes of section 2(1)(b) and (c) of the 2004 Act and that the effect of that interpretation, which was inconsistent with the state’s obligations under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was to require the applicant, and other transgender persons, to abandon the right to choose to conceive biological children (or take steps to conceive) as a precondition to obtaining a gender recognition certificate.
The hearing was held in private, though attended by the press, and the judgment is reported with permission of the judge on condition that the anonymity of the applicant be strictly preserved.
The facts are stated in the judgment, post, paras 1, 22–24, 42–50, 69–71, 84–91.
Gayatri Sarathy (instructed by
Nathan Roberts (instructed by
The panel did not appear and was not represented.
The court took time for consideration.
17 October 2025. HAYDEN J handed down the following judgment.
1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Gender Recognition Panel (“the Panel”). On 3 February 2025, the Panel declined to issue a Gender Recognition Certificate (“GRC”) to the appellant. It is that decision which is being appealed.
The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“GRA 2004”)2 In order to give context to the difficult issues that fall to be considered in this appeal, it is necessary to say something of the provenance and scope of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“GRA 2004”), which is the legal framework for decision-taking in this sphere. The enactment of the GRA 2004 was the United Kingdom’s response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) in Goodwin v United Kingdom (
3 The court referred to various difficulties faced by the applicant arising from the failure of the law to recognise her acquired gender. These included her inability to change her birth certificate, and different treatment as regards social security, national insurance issues, pensions and employment. The court recognised that it had previously held that the UK law did not interfere with respect for private life (para 73). But in the light of the then social conditions, it reassessed the appropriate application of the Convention.
4 The ECtHR regarded it as highly significant that the National Health Service recognised the condition of “gender dysphoria” and provided reassignment surgery “with...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
R (Good Law Project Ltd and Others) v Equality and Human Rights Commission
...983, SC(Sc) Van Kück v Germany (Application No 35968/97) (2003) 37 EHRR 51, ECtHR W v Gender Recognition Panel [2025] EWHC 2685 (Fam); [2026] 1 WLR 1247 CLAIM for judicial By a claim form the claimants, (1) Good Law Project Ltd, (2) BOT, (3) BNW and (4) BBS, brought a claim for judicial rev......
