Search and find what you need faster.

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Lawrence Stephens featured in PM Forum Magazine

Posted on: May 22nd, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Managing Director Steven Bernstein, Chief Operating Office Johnny Nichols and Head of Business Development and Marketing Daryl Atkinson feature in the latest edition of PM Forum Magazine talking about what makes the culture at Lawrence Stephens so special, and how this is powering our growth.

Founded in 1996, PM Forum is the world’s largest community of professional services marketers, with more than 3,000 members in over 40 countries. The Forum is dedicated to raising the standards of marketing across law, accountancy, property and other professional sectors.

House Shouts

There will be very few law firms where the CEO knows the names of all 190 staff, and even fewer where those people are, like school, assigned a ‘house’. Alongside phenomenal growth, this is why Lawrence Stephens has been repeatedly tagged as the firm to watch.

Matt Baldwin speaks to Managing Director Steven Bernstein, Chief Operating Officer Johnny Nichols, and Head of Business Development and Marketing Daryl Atkinson.

Lawrence Stephens like to do things differently. It is a relative newcomer to the London legal market, founded in 1997, and, like many other firms, named after its founding directors.

But unlike its peers, the firm is strictly first names only. The ‘Lawrence’ is Lawrence Kelly and the ‘Stephens’ are Steven Bernstein and Stephen Messias. All are still involved in the firm.

It is a hint towards its difference.

The firm is a limited company, with directors instead of partners, focused on entrepreneurial owner-managed businesses, SMEs and financial institutions, particularly challenger banks.

“We know what we are good at, and we concentrate on that,” explains Managing Director Steven Bernstein. The firm does, however, provide the full service of legal advice for those clients and will, as it grows “stay in its lanes, acting for bigger clients”.

It is an approach that is clearly working, seeing revenue increase by 30% a year over the last five years, and its headcount growing from 50 to 190 people. It was named by The Lawyer as a ‘firm to watch’ in its December 2024 podcast.

It is, however, its culture that truly marks the firm out as different.

Bernstein spends 30 minutes every day walking the floors and talking to his colleagues. Remarkably, he knows them all by name. “I see it as part of my job description to walk the office, chat with people and ask them how they are doing, if everything’s OK. “I have to work at it, particularly with 40 new members of staff this quarter alone, but it is the easiest 30 minutes of my day.”

The firm’s Farringdon office is open plan with no allocated desks. It means staff quickly get to know each other.

“It creates a real buzz,” says Johnny Nichols, the firm’s Chief Operating Officer, “with conversations and discussions naturally occurring all the time. It means those who have recently joined us get to meet others and build relationships quickly. “Importantly,” he adds, “it fosters the kind of environment where everyone is nice, enjoying each other’s company, happy to collaborate and celebrate each other’s wins.”

And then there are the firm’s ‘houses’, named after locations of previous offices – Baker (Baker Street), Portland (Great Portland Street), Wigmore (Wigmore Street) and Morley (Morley House on Holborn Viaduct).

“The idea came from our trainees,” explains Bernstein, “with first-year trainees appointed ‘head of house’. Everyone in the firm is a member of one of the four houses. There are competitions throughout the year for ‘house points’ that at the end of each year are turned into charitable donations.”

Every summer, there is the firm’s sports day and BBQ where house members, joined by partners and families, compete for house glory. Other events include the ‘Bake-Off’ challenge and the annual house quiz.

“It empowers younger people, breaking down the hierarchy in the firm,” says Bernstein. “It means that as we grow, staff get to know each other much easier. Importantly, it’s fun, and we want everyone to enjoy what they do and where they work.”

Lawrence Stephens 3.0

Entrepreneurial businesses are never static. Just as its clients grow and change, so too is Lawrence Stephens. “We are currently Lawrence Stephens 2.0,” says Bernstein, “and quickly heading towards Lawrence Stephens 3.0”.

Part of that journey has been the investment in a strong business services team, supporting and guiding the legal teams.

Nichols joined the firm as its Chief Operating Officer in September 2022 having held senior roles in Allen & Overy and Bird & Bird. Daryl Atkinson joined in June 2024 as its Head of Business Development and Marketing. He leads a team of five.

“There are two aspects to the role,” explains Atkinson. “There is the execution piece, making things happen efficiently and effectively and without reinventing the wheel, and the advisory piece, trying to encourage the right kind of behaviours and activity that deliver results. “I strongly believe that to make waves, a firm of this size needs to be really clear about its future. We can’t be in every market – it is just not possible. It’s about bringing focus to the firm. We know what we are good at and what we should concentrate on. We are also clear on what we not going to do.”

Atkinson and his team have made an immediate impact.

“We are a people business,” explains Bernstein, “and that means the relationships we have with our clients are important. They like what we do and keep coming back to the firm. Daryl and his team are helping us to better leverage those relationships and to understand where we should focus our energy.

“We are now better known in the areas we work than ever before. The reputation change has been enormous, and the foundations are now in place for the firm to grow into Lawrence Stephens 3.0.”

Lawrence Stephens 3.0 will look and feel very similar to the firm today. Its culture will be jealously guarded and nurtured.

“We don’t want to lose our humanity,” says Nichols. “Our HR team is helping us to articulate what our culture means to people individually so we can find ways to hold on to that and sustain it as we grow.”

That growth might see the addition of new teams – it recently took a banking and real estate finance team from the collapsed Memery Crystal – and the addition of new expertise, but only if it fits the firm’s tight client profile.

“We can imagine ourselves with an office a little further north… a kind of hub for clients in Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds,” adds Bernstein. “But there is no intention of having an office in every town or a large international footprint.”

There is an energy inside Lawrence Stephens, a sense of urgency and mission that is shared by its 190 people. It is a little less like a law firm and more like its entrepreneurial clients. And that should leave the more traditional mid-tier firms looking nervously over their shoulders.

Lawrence Stephens successfully acts for Respondent parent in reported case of M v F

Posted on: May 15th, 2025 by Alanah Lenten

Lawrence Stephens’ Family team, led by Co-Head of Family Eleanor Wood, recently acted for the Respondent parent in the reported Family Court case of M v F [2025] EWFC 114 (B).

A fact-finding hearing as part of child arrangement proceedings, the four-day hearing concerned allegations of long-standing abuse and controlling behaviour made my Lawrence Stephens’ client (Parent M) against their former partner. These included allegations of physical abuse (one of which lead to police involvement), emotional abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour and sexual abuse.

The Applicant (Parent F) contested these allegations, however the judge noted that their evidence was “remarkably inconsistent and lacking in credibility.” The Applicant’s argument that the allegations were financially motivated and intended to block their contact with their child was also rejected by the court.

Concluding her judgment, HHJ Owens upheld all allegations of abuse behaviour made by the Respondent parent, with the case proceeding to determine what arrangements are in the best interest of the child.

The full judgment can be read here.

AI in Law: Emma Cocker Shares Expert Insights in City AM Feature

Posted on: May 15th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker comments in City AM on the future of AI within law firms, arguing that it can be a useful tool, however lawyers and employers must act cautiously as improper use can have serious legal implications. 

Emma’s comments were published in City AM, 15 May 2025, and can be found here.

“AI undoubtedly plays a huge role in the future of legal services. It will make them more accessible and affordable, which is a huge benefit, given that so many people and small businesses struggle to access legal services. It can also speed up output, with the automation of repetitive and time-consuming tasks helping lawyers to work more efficiently, which also translates to costs savings for clients.

“However AI must be used with caution. Remember that it should be used as a starting point and that the output is only ever as good as the input, which may be vulnerable to online misinformation. As such, AI content must always be reviewed for accuracy and subject to ultimate approval by a human being. We know that AI ‘hallucinates’ and we have already seen lawyers over relying on AI coming unstuck. As well as the professional embarrassment factor, AI could deskill junior lawyers who may not be practicing legal researching and drafting to the same degree as previous generations of lawyers. It may also contribute to a decline in the development of other key skills, such as critical and independent thinking.

“In authorising the first AI-driven law firm, the Solicitors Regulation Authority made it clear that lawyers relying on AI output will be ultimately responsible for the consequences and that professional standards must always be maintained to ensure public trust and confidence in the sector. Those who do use AI improperly may find themselves facing disciplinary proceedings by their employer and the regulator and in cases of ‘AI gone wrong’ there is scope for negligence claims by clients, as well as costs applications by opponents.”

For more information on our Employment services, please click here.

Shaping Blockchain Law: Matt Green Reflects on Career and Landmark Crypto Cases in CDR

Posted on: May 14th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets and Technology Disputes, Matt Green, speaks with Commercial Dispute Resolution (CDR) about his career in the crypto asset space and how some of the notable cases he has worked on have influenced legal precedent around blockchain and digital assets. 

Matt’s interview was published online in Commercial Dispute Resolution (CDR), 12 May 2025 and can be found here.

Discussing the first crypto case he was involved with, the landmark AA v Persons Unknown, Matt explains “I was enormously opportunistic, and I just rode with it… I was in the right place at the right time.”

He notes how there was “a big gap in the market” at the time, with many in the blockchain and digital asset space not knowing that there were legal routes to trace and recover their stolen or hacked assets.

Speaking on lessons learned during his career, Matt comments:“It is attrition, staying in the game, not overreaching. Being very aware that you don’t know everything. I don’t think anybody could say they did have all the answers, on the basis that the judiciary and the industry are trying to figure it out.”

Discussing the evolution of both his practice and the digital asset space itself, Matt explains that “there will be huge intellectual property battles about a variety of different things that we probably can’t even imagine yet, it’s almost unknowable.”

With many of Matt’s cases showing the “grizzly places” of the crypto world – from pig butchering scams on Facebook groups for grieving widows to tracing stolen assets to an organ farm in Southeast Asia, and the high-profile disputes over the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Yet despite this, Matt encourages people to see the wider utility of this technology, telling CDR that he would like to see the “wider adoption and understanding of the applications of blockchain tech and digital assets.”

For junior lawyers looking to get into the constantly evolving world of digital assets and blockchain, Matt explains that there are plenty of ways: “set up a blog, write articles, start a podcast, join groups. If you get involved with the industry that you choose, you’re going to be much more valuable to a law firm than if you don’t, and there is no date by which you should start doing this.”

For more on our Blockchain, Digital Assets and Technology Disputes services, click here

Lawrence Stephens Expands Residential Real Estate practice with Senior Hire

Posted on: May 12th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Lawrence Stephens is delighted to announce the appointment of Alexa Kordowicz as a Director in the firm’s growing Residential Real Estate team.

Alexa joins from Child & Child, where she developed a leading reputation for advising on high-value residential property transactions. Alexa has built a wide-ranging practice acting for individuals, companies and both UK and international private banks. She brings to the firm a wealth of experience in managing complex and high-net-worth property matters, with a particular focus on delivering a seamless client experience through strong relationships and a commercially minded approach.

Alexa looks forward to working closely with teams such as Private Wealth to coordinate multi-faceted transactions involving extensive property portfolios.

Speaking on her appointment, Alexa commented: “I’m thrilled to be joining the highly regarded team at Lawrence Stephens. The firm’s client-first ethos and collaborative culture are an excellent fit for my approach to legal practice. I look forward to continuing to support clients in the UK and internationally on their residential property matters, and to growing the practice together with the wider team.”

Goli-Michelle Banan, Head of Residential Real Estate, added: “Alexa is an exceptional addition to our team. Her experience in high-value residential transactions, coupled with her commitment to client service, aligns perfectly with our focus on delivering a tailored and positive experience. We’re excited to welcome her to Lawrence Stephens as we continue to expand the scope and strength of our Residential Real Estate offering.”

Details of our Residential Real Estate services can be found here

Lawrence Stephens advises Fidelius on its investment in Vobis

Posted on: May 9th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Lawrence Stephens has advised Top 100 financial planning firm Fidelius on its acquisition of a non-controlling stake in Vobis, a London and Yorkshire-based IFA.

Founded in 2013, Vobis, which manages over £140m in client assets, specialises in financial planning for high-net-worth individuals and operates a joint venture with a top 60 accountancy practice in central London. The firm also has a regional office in Leeds.

The deal marks the first investment by Fidelius since Swedish wealth manager Söderberg & Partners took a minority stake in the business at the start of 2024.

The Lawrence Stephens’ team was led by Corporate and Commercial Director Jeff Rubenstein, supported by Associate Harshita Samani, Solicitors Lucy Cadley and Avni Patel, and Trainee Electra Kallidou.

Jeff Rubenstein commented: “While this was our first transaction for Fidelius, this assignment was the latest in a series of transactions we have advised on in the rapidly consolidating Financial Services industry. We very much enjoyed working with the Fidelius team, their energy and ambition very much reflects our own ethos and we look forward to working with them in the future”.

Richard Armstrong, Head of Governance, Risk and Compliance at Fidelius responded: “We are grateful for the advice and support provided by the team at Lawrence Stephens. The team were proactive and responsive, and their can-do approach helped move this important transaction along. Our ambition is to be a top 20 IFA and more acquisitions are likely.”

Find out more about our Corporate and Commercial services here

The Renters’ Rights Bill – What it could mean for lenders?

Posted on: May 8th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

The Renters’ Rights Bill (‘the Bill’) is currently making its way through the House of Lords. While there has been growing opposition to the Bill, with over 300 amendments being proposed, the Bill could still prove to be a welcome change for lenders.

Purpose of the Bill

The Bill has been introduced to:

  • give greater rights and protections to people renting their homes
  • provide tenants with the flexibility to leave substandard properties

In short, it is intended to:

  • Reform tenancies
  • Strengthen tenants’ rights
  • Create a landlord redress scheme
  • Create a private rented sector database
  • Create a legal standard for property conditions
  • Expand enforcement powers


The potential impact of the Bill on lenders

Currently, there are two options available to recover vacant possession of a property subject to an assured shorthold tenancy, namely:

  • Serving a notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (‘HA 1988’)
  • Serving a notice under section 8 of the HA 1988

Section 21 Notice

Also known as a ‘no-fault’ eviction, this is used where a tenancy is coming up to expiry or has already expired.

As a result of Trecarrell v Rouncefield [2020], if the landlord is unable to evidence compliance with the various prescribed requirements, then simply put, they will not be granted a possession order.

Section 8 Notice

A notice under this section can be used in two situations:

– where the tenant has breached the terms of the tenancy, or

– where a lender requires vacant possession of the property for the purpose of exercising their power of sale and is bound by a tenancy postdates the loan.

Notices under Section 8 of the HA 1988 are restrictive for lenders requiring vacant possession. Many grounds under this section can be remedied and it is otherwise limited to tenancies which postdate the loan. In addition, a landlord (borrower) should have also served a notice on the tenant confirming they can rely on this ground to obtain vacant possession (albeit the court has discretion to dispense with this requirement).

 

What the reform could mean for lender’s enforcement

The reform will essentially simplify a lender’s ability to take possession of a property subject to a tenancy.

The intention is to abolish assured shorthold tenancies (and as a consequence, ‘no-fault’ eviction notices) under Section 21 of the HA 1988, and to amend Ground 2 of Schedule 2 of the HA 1988 so that it reads as follows:

The dwelling-house is subject to a mortgage and –

(a) the mortgagee is entitled to exercise a power of sale conferred on him by the mortgage or by section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925; and

(b) the mortgagee requires possession of the dwelling-house for the purpose of disposing of it with vacant possession in exercise of that power.

For the purposes of this ground “mortgage” includes a charge and “mortgagee” shall be construed accordingly.

This means that lenders will be able to rely on this section whether the tenancy predates or postdates the loan, provided the lender requires vacant possession for the purpose of exercising their power of sale. They need no longer be concerned about evicting a tenant when they are unable to comply with the requirements for prescribed information for tenant deposits and the Deregulation Act 2015, viz. the provision of the How to Rent Guide, EPC, Gas and Electrical Safety Certificates. The main contention under the reform is that tenants will be afforded a four-month notice period, which some lenders may accept as a small quid pro quo.

It is recommended that lenders continue to ask the right questions and continue to carry out their due diligence in respect of tenancies. In terms of lending in the short term/alternative lending space, which is often time critical, such potentially arduous and frustrating requirements need no longer be so. Lenders will now have the flexibility to take a view, knowing that it will not compromise their ability to secure vacant possession should they need to enforce the terms of their loan.

For more information on our Real Estate Disputes services, please click here.

Matt Green discusses crypto assets disputes and recovery with the Government of Gibraltar

Posted on: May 8th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director and Head of Blockchain Matt Green presented to the Ministry of Justice, Trade and Industry of the Government of Gibraltar, outlining the evolving legal status of digital assets alongside Scott Pounder, Founder and CEO of Prometheus Insights. 

Looking to the current legal landscape and potential future developments, Matt and Scott explained why recognising digital assets as property is essential, considering:

  • The definition of digital assets
  • The canon of common law, including Matt’s own cases, and how asset recovery cases created precedents globally
  • The role of legal definitions of property, now ratified in the Court of Appeal, from case law through to the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill
  • Considering a draft statutory instrument designed to bring dealing with crypto assets into the remit of regulated activity under FSMA 2000.

The Government of Gibraltar’s official press release can be found here.

For more information on our digital assets expertise, please click here.

Angélique Richardson discusses the legal and reputation risks of doping in City AM

Posted on: May 7th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Writing in City AM, Associate Angélique Richardson discusses the return of tennis star Jannik Sinner following his three-month suspension for failing two “in-competition” drug tests and analyses the legal and reputational risks arising from anti-doping violations.

Angélique’s article was published in City AM, 7 May 2025, and can be found here.

Jannik Sinner and anti-doping bans in tennis: how players can mitigate risks

Jannik Sinner’s re-appearance at the Italian Open guarantees attention, following his three-month suspension for failing two “in-competition” drug tests during and eight days after Indian Wells last year, for the banned anabolic steroid clostebol.

Ranked world No1, the three-time Grand Slam winner’s return to competitive tennis at his home tournament this week is a reminder of the legal and reputational risks arising from anti-doping violations.

Sinner was charged with an anti-doping rule violation by the International Tennis Integrity Agency, which enforces the World Anti-Doping Code 2015 through the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (“TAPD”).

According to the TAPD, a first in-competition rule violation carries a four-year ban, reduced to two if proven unintentional. The ban could be eliminated if the player proves “no fault or negligence”, meaning that they couldn’t have reasonably known or suspected they had used a prohibited substance.

Sinner and his team never denied the substance was in his system. Thei argument was that his fitness coach purchased an antiseptic spray which contained clostebol.

While Sinner was at Indian Wells, his physio accidentally cut his hand and used the fitness coach’s antiseptic spray daily to treat the cut. The physio massaged Sinner without wearing gloves or washing his hands, and the substance entered Sinner’s system through the cut. They claimed Sinner bore no fault or negligence.

Initially, this version of events was accepted by the independent tribunal. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland and reached a case resolution agreement with Sinner for a three-month ban, which elapsed on Sunday.

This case, while resolved, highlighted numerous issues faced by professional athletes.

Sinner’s reputation and integrity have been called into question, including by fellow player Novak Djokovic, and future potential sponsors and partners may be wary.

Many commercial deals with brands contain anti-doping clauses which enable them to terminate the agreements when an athlete is alleged to have committed an doping violation. Sinner may find some of these clauses triggered.

Stars like Jannik Sinner ‘must be proactive’

The ease of cross-contamination is clear. Sinner was contaminated by his physio, but the same could happen when sharing equipment with others who have used a prohibited substance, touching friends and family who have used a prohibited substance or using untested supplements.

A recent study commissioned by Sport Integrity Australia showed that, of the 200 supplements tested, 35 per cent contained WADA-prohibited substances. Athletes assume the ingredients listed in supplements are accurate, but this is not always true.

So, what can be done? Better education is needed about the risks associated with supplements, including via seminars, clubs, online resources and support teams.

Athletes can further mitigate risks by using Informed-Sport Certified supplements, staying up-to-date with substances on the prohibited list, and ensuring that nutritionists and staff members are fully trained. Instructing a sports lawyer with a specialism in doping is a no-brainer.

In the event of an anti-doping rule violation notice or charge, athletes should talk to a legal specialist. Sinner and WADA reaching an agreement on a three-month ban came thanks to the specialist anti-doping knowledge of his lawyers, who will also be working hard to ensure as few commercial deals are impacted as possible.

Athletes and their teams need to proactively reduce risks. An apology won’t get you out of trouble. Regardless, Sinner will hope that it is his tennis, rather than his lawyers, doing the talking at the Italian Open.

For more information on our expert services for athletes and sportspeople, please click hereanti-doping.

Lawrence Stephens advises Arc’teryx on Manchester store

Posted on: April 25th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Lawrence Stephens Director Nickhil Mandora and Solicitor Sophie Levitt have advised Arc’teryx on their first UK store outside of London, located at New Cathedral Street, Manchester. The new store is Arc’teryx’s first foray into the UK retail market outside of London and represents a significant vote of confidence for the North West.

Arc’teryx, based in North Vancouver, British Columbia, is a Canadian company specializing in technical outdoor apparel and equipment for mountaineering and alpine sports.

The new store, set to open this summer, will be the brand’s fourth UK location, joining its other retail sites in Covent Garden, Piccadilly, and Battersea Power Station.

Nickhil Mandora has acted on the leases of each of these sites and said “We are delighted to have acted for Arc’teryx on their newest store located on New Cathedral Street, Manchester, which will no doubt have been with met excitement by fashion-conscious Mancunians. Arc’teryx are a brand that are at the top of their game, having managed to effortlessly tap into the zeitgeist, and we look forward to extending our relationship with them.” 

For more information on our services and expertise in the commercial real estate sector, please click here.

Matt Green discusses UK crypto innovation and regulation in The Times

Posted on: April 24th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Writing in The Times, Director and Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets, Matt Green, argues that the UK government needs to adopt a clear big picture strategy on implementing blockchain technology if it is to maintain parity with competitors.
 
Matt’s article follows a recent letter he co-signed as chair of techUK’s Blockchain and Digital Assets working group, alongside a coalition of leading UK and global trade bodies in the crypto sector to the UK government urging them to advance its digital asset and blockchain policy.

Matt’s article was published in The Times, 24 April 2025, and can be found here.

Government must urgently delivery regulatory clarity for cryptoassets

It is roughly six months since the digital assets industry called on the Labour government to provide urgent “regulatory clarity” at the party’s annual conference. The then economic secretary to the Treasury, Tulip Siddiq, responded by confirming the government’s commitment to fostering innovation in financial services, but there is little meat on the bone.

It has also been three years since the previous government’s plan to make the UK a global cryptoasset technology hub. This ambiguity serves no one.

Helpfully, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has since published key dates in a ‘crypto roadmap’ that details the development of comprehensive regulatory framework for the UK. Draft legal provisions are expected soon, with a series of consultation papers examining how the future regime will work and its content – such as stronger regulation for capital, liquidity and risk management of cryptoassets – to come. The roadmap anticipates that the rules will take effect late next year.

While that is welcome, the UK needs clarity and momentum to boost investment, growth and jobs, and to avoid falling behind competitors such as Singapore, the UAE or the US in technology investment and innovation. If the government is serious about making crypto a strategic priority, it should mirror the US by appointing a crypto special envoy – President Trump has appointed David Sacks, the former senior executive at PayPal, to that role.

The UK desperately needs a comparable appointee who can drive policy alignment, assimilate industry innovation and ensure that regulation and legislation are formulated and drafted with the UK’s best interests.

Our government also needs a plan that will focus on identifying opportunities and attracting investment. These could include an incentivisation programme to attract businesses with significant potential, explore elements of public sector integration and create a competitive tax and investment landscape.

Recognising the symbiosis of blockchain, artificial intelligence and quantum computing and their potential value is vital, both for preparing future regulatory frameworks, and considering use in daily life. Ultimately, this will improve efficiency for a swathe of crucial public services. Consider how the Land Registry and Companies House could hold important documents on the blockchain to simplify and accelerate property and share transfers. Key government procurement contracts and transmission of NHS data could also be transformed. 

According to the FCA, 12 per cent of UK adults – about 7 million people – owned cryptoassets last year. In contrast, according to the most recent data, only 8 per cent of global venture capital funding went into UK firms that specialise in that field, while the US dominates with 76%.

A clear direction, guided by a singular politically and sector agnostic driver, and with clear regulatory framework, could transform the UK economy for decades to come.

 

 

‘Gender critical’ belief discrimination – where are we now?

Posted on: April 24th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Four years ago, the concept of discrimination based on ‘gender critical’ beliefs was unheard of. However, the 2021 decision of Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors paved the way for protection under the Equality Act 2010 for individuals holding gender critical beliefs.  

Despite Forstater, there has been a slew of employment tribunal cases brought by individuals claiming their belief that sex is biological and immutable led their employers to subject them to less favourable treatment. These claimants worked in areas including the NHS, local government, charities, the education sector and even the legal profession. With trans rights supporters claiming that such beliefs are transphobic and hateful, many employers have been confused as to their obligations and fearful of ‘getting it wrong’.

Most recently, in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers it was held that ‘sex’ within the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, reigniting tensions about the interplay between the rights of trans people and the rights of biological men and women. With the Supreme Court’s decision hot off the press, this article summarises some of the key cases and legal principles that have emerged in recent years, helping employers to be confident in their decisions about balancing the rights of all parties to be treated in a way compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and help them to ensure everyone enjoys dignity and respect at work.

Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors (2022)

Maya Forstater’s consulting contract with the Centre for Global Development was not renewed after she published a series of social media messages describing transgender women as men. She brought claims of discrimination, with the employment tribunal initially ruling against her. However the Employment Appeal Tribunal later found that her beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 because they were “worthy of respect in a democratic society“. At a subsequent hearing, the tribunal concluded Ms Forstater had suffered direct discrimination on the basis of her gender-critical beliefs and she was awarded compensation of over £105,500 including for loss of earnings, injury to feelings, aggravated damages and interest.

Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited Garden Court Chambers & Ors (2022)

Barrister Allison Bailey claimed she was discriminated against for her gender-critical views after Garden Court chambers concluded that two of her personal tweets, which included gender critical views, potentially breached her professional obligations as a barrister. Bailey had co-founded LGB Alliance, an advocacy group for the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, which opposed the ‘trans extremism’ it said Stonewall promulgated. Ms Bailey complained to colleagues about Garden Chambers becoming a Stonewall Diversity Champion, saying that Stonewall was complicit in a campaign of intimidation of those who questioned gender self-identity. The tribunal found that Garden Court had discriminated against Ms Bailey and she was awarded £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings, plus interest.

Fahmy v Arts Council England (2023)

Denise Fahmy attended an internal teams meeting where hostile comments were made about people who hold gender critical beliefs. This was in the context of a discussion about the award and removal of a grant to LGB Alliance. A petition was later circulated in which further hostile and intimidating comments were made, leading Ms Fahmy to raise a Dignity at Work complaint, which was not upheld. Leeds Employment Tribunal found in favour of Ms Fahmy, concluding that she had been harassed for her gender-critical beliefs, and shortly afterwards, the parties reached settlement for an undisclosed sum.

Phoenix v Open University (2024)

Joanna Phoenix, a professor, co-signed a letter to the Sunday Times in 2019 in which she made her gender critical beliefs known. She, with others, then established the Gender Critical Research Network, an academic research group promoting research into sex and gender from a gender critical perspective. As a result, she was harassed and discriminated against by colleagues, including in one instance the Deputy Head of Department likening her to “the racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table“. The employment tribunal found that her complaints of direct discrimination and harassment were well-founded and that she had been constructively unfairly (and wrongfully) dismissed. Shortly afterwards the parties reached settlement for an undisclosed sum.

Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (2024)

Roz Adams worked as a counsellor at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Ms Adams held gender critical beliefs and believed that victims of male sexual violence should be able to choose whether to engage with male or female counsellors. In 2021, the centre appointed a trans woman to the post of CEO. Ms Adams warned that giving ambiguous answers to victims who wanted to know the sex of their counsellor could mislead them or lead them to self-exclude from the service. The issue escalated when a colleague announced they were non-binary and changed their name to one that sounded male. Ms Adams asked her manager for clarity on how she should respond if service users asked if the colleague was male, which along with her observations about language used regarding gender critical people (including ‘terf’, bigot and fascist’) led to a deeply flawed disciplinary process against Ms Adams. She resigned, alleging constructive dismissal and discrimination. Delivering a scathing judgment, the tribunal concluded that Ms Adams had been discriminated against and constructively dismissed due to her gender-critical beliefs. Ms Adams was awarded compensation of £68,990 and Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre was ordered to publish a statement apologising.

Meade v Westminster City Counsel and Social Work England (2024)

Rachel Meade, a social worker, posted on a Facebook profile (that was set to private with approximately 40 friends) expressing her gender critical beliefs. One of Ms Meade’s colleagues complained to the regulator about these posts, alleging that they were transphobic and that Ms Meade had deliberately shared posts containing misinformation about the trans community. Following an investigation into the complaint, Ms Meade was told that there was a reasonable prospect that her Fitness to Practise would be found currently impaired because of her ‘discriminatory activity’ on Facebook. She was told that she could either accept the report and a sanction of a one-year warning or have her case referred to a hearing. She chose the former. Ms Meade’s immediate managers confirmed they had no concerns about her practice but she was subsequently suspended on charges of gross misconduct and ultimately issued with a final written warning. The tribunal found that Ms Meade had been harassed on account of her gender critical beliefs, awarding her over £58,000, including aggravated and exemplary damages, reflecting the extent of the wrongs committed by the Respondents.

Frances v Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (2025)

Ms Frances brought claims of constructive dismissal on the basis of her gender-critical belief and also on a separate philosophical belief in the integrity of the civil service. The claims were settled early, but this case was highly unusual in that there was no confidentiality around the settlement, including its high value (£116,000). It also resulted in public statements from two Whitehall permanent secretaries, committing their respective departments to significant redrawing of policies around sex and gender. This case helped to buck the previous trend of litigating gender critical belief cases until the bitter end, following settlement in the cases of Esses v The Metanoia Institute and the UK Council of Psychotherapy and Favaro v City, University of London.

Higgs v Farmor’s School (2025)

Kristie Higgs, pastoral administrator and work experience manager at a school, was dismissed for posts she made on her Facebook profile opposing the view that ‘gender is fluid and not binary’, contending that same-sex marriage cannot be equated with traditional marriage between a man and a woman. A complaint was made by a parent, leading to MS Higgs’ suspension and eventual dismissal. Ms Higgs claimed direct discrimination and harassment. While her claims were initially dismissed on the basis that it was the manner of expression that had caused her dismissal, not her beliefs themselves, the Employment Appeal Tribunal granted her appeal and remitted the case back to the tribunal. Ms Higgs appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ultimately ruled that Ms Higgs’ dismissal constituted unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, emphasising that dismissing an employee merely for expressing a protected belief is unlawful unless the manner of expression is objectionable and the dismissal is a proportionate response.

What should employers be doing in light of these decisions?

It is clear that employers that conduct or condone discrimination against workers with gender critical beliefs are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of an employment tribunal judgment. While this precedent is well established, the recent decision in For Women Scotland has once again brought to the fore the issue of competing protections under the Equality Act 2010. While there is a surfeit of misinformation circulating online that the Supreme Court has ‘removed’ or ‘weakened’ the rights of transgender individuals in favour of those who hold gender critical beliefs, this is incorrect. The law today is the same as it was before last week’s decision and discrimination against trans people for reasons relating to gender reassignment remains unlawful, as does discrimination against those holding gender critical beliefs. However, because of the misrepresentation of the law on this highly emotive topic, many organisations are confused and fearful. Nevertheless, businesses must take a step back from the online noise and focus on a common-sense approach that treats everyone with dignity and respect.

Employers ought to remember that inclusion is for everyone and that there is nothing discriminatory in recognising that the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment relate to groups that have different needs and vulnerabilities. Employers should avoid making statements that disagree with the Equality Act 2010 or the Supreme Court judgment, or that favours or prioritises particular groups. This may lead to claims of sex-based harassment and discrimination as well as discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief.

It is possible to treat trans people with dignity and respect while also applying the Equality Act 2010 definition of sex, and remaining compliant with it. While it may be tempting to seek to avoid conflict, making all spaces ‘gender neutral’ is likely to garner complaints, as well as being in breach of workplace health and safety legislation. It may also be tempting to take situations on a case-by-case basis, but this is likely to lead to non-compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and could lead to employment tribunal claims by workers who expect to be able to access single sex spaces for reasons of privacy and dignity.

It is recommended that employers review their policies and training to assess and act on the risk that what they currently have is unlawful. Policies not based on the Equality Act 2010’s definition of sex are likely to result in unlawful conduct for which employers may be sued in the employment tribunal. Clear language should always be used and the normal standards of workplace and professional conduct must be applied to everyone equally. Set clear expectations around conduct and do not tolerate offensive behaviour in the workplace, whatever the protected characteristic in question. Businesses may see a rise in grievances relating to this topic and while proper grievance policies should always be followed, employers should not entertain vexatious or unreasonable complaints and may need to consider invoking their disciplinary policy for repeat offenders.

If you would like support and advice on making certain that your policies and handbooks ensure your employees are protected, please contact a member of our Employment team.