Update: the City of London seeks to delay again

Yesterday was the deadline for the City of London Corporation to file its substantive defence on the lawfulness of its policy of allowing trans-identifying men into the women’s pond and showers on Hampstead Heath.

But a few days ago it made a last-ditch attempt to avoid making substantive legal arguments at all.

It applied to the court for the case to be “stayed” on the basis that its committees will soon reach a final decision on what admission arrangements to adopt following its consultation.

Previously it told the High Court a final decision “will be taken in March 2026”. It now says that timetable “was somewhat optimistic” but it is “confident” that a final decision will be made on 4th June 2026.

Sex Matters first wrote to the City of London on 17th June 2025, calling on it to reconsider its policy, which we say commits it to undertaking unlawful sex discrimination in several different directions. It refused. We filed our claim in August 2025 and asked for it to be expedited.

We want the court to hear what the City has to say as quickly as possible, so the City can get on with adopting a lawful policy and giving swimmers and staff confidence about who can go where.

The City has been dragging its feet using procedural arguments to try to avoid defending its policy. It said that our claim was too early and that it was too late, that there was no decision to challenge, that the claim shouldn’t be brought by way of judicial review and that Sex Matters didn’t have standing to bring it. Now that “the dog ate my homework” arguments have failed, the City of London says there is no time left for it to answer the substantive claim.

It argues that it should not have to defend the lawfulness of its current policy at all, since – it says – the issue will become “academic” once a final decision over the policy is made.

But the Administrative Court Guide makes clear that:

“A stay will not normally be permitted to enable the defendant to reconsider the decision under challenge in the claim.”

And in any case, unless the City of London abandons any variation on allowing trans-identifying men into the Ladies’ Pond, a judgment testing a version of the approach will serve a practical purpose.

It is now over a year since the Supreme Court judgment clarified the law, and we still haven’t heard a full account from the City of London of why it thinks that allowing some men into the women’s pond and showers while excluding others is lawful. It did say in July:

“The Corporation is expressly not seeking to rely on the [single and separate-sex service] exceptions under paragraphs 26–28 of Schedule 3 EqA.”

In September it said:

“One possible outcome of the review is that a trans-inclusive policy is, in the Corporation’s view, lawful positive action pursuant to s.158 EqA.”

In granting permission for our claim to go ahead, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing called the City’s response to the substantive claim “unpersuasive”.

No wonder the City is still trying to wriggle out of making these arguments in court.

Meanwhile the weather is getting warmer and more women and girls are self-excluding, or risking being exposed to men as they use the open showers at the Ladies’ Pond. And staff and police officers on Hampstead Heath are being put at risk of engaging in discrimination and harassment in trying to implement the City of London’s policy.

Under Section 110 of the Equality Act, employees can avoid liability for contravening the act if they have relied on a statement by their employer that the action they were being told to undertake is lawful. The employer commits a criminal offence if it knowingly or recklessly makes a statement on this to its employees which is false or misleading in a material respect.

The City of London Corporation, and other duty bearers under the Equality Act, cannot keep hiding behind excuses. They are going to have to come out into the sunshine and explain why they think it is lawful to do what they are doing. The City has already wasted too much time and money trying to avoid doing the only responsible thing, which is to follow the law.

Campaign: Keep the women’s pond for women