In March 2025, the Office for Students (OfS) fined the University of Sussex £585,000 for breaching its duties on freedom of speech and governance, following a three-and-a-half-year investigation. At the centre of this investigation was the University’s Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement after student protests targeting a (then) philosophy professor, Kathleen Stock.
On Tuesday 3rd February 2026, almost one year later, a judicial review hearing before the High Court in London took place. Here, the court heard of the University’s “severe” consequences as a result of the fine, with particular reference to the “significant financial impact on the university”.
The University is challenging the OfS ruling on the following grounds:
First, the trans and non-binary equality policy statement at the centre of the original investigation is not a governing document of the University, so it is therefore not subject to OfS registration conditions. The policy in the investigation is a 2018 policy statement adopted in November 2018. Amid the May Government’s ongoing debate about gender self-ID, Stock had begun to speak out about “nearly all academic philosophers… are ignoring it”, it being the “apparent conflict between women-who-are-not-transwomen’s rights and interests” according to her blog posts.
This was followed by a letter being sent to The Guardian in October of 2018 with Stock as a lead signatory among other gender-critical academics claiming that “many of our universities have close links with trans-advocacy organisations who provide ‘training’ of academics and management, and who, it is reasonable to suppose, influence university policy through these links”. The letter went on to argue that definitions of what is ‘transphobic’ “can be dangerously all-encompassing and go well beyond what a reasonable law would describe”. Thus followed a policy statement in November 2018, in time to announce it on Trans Day of Remembrance on Tuesday, 20th November 2018.
Lawyers for Sussex argued that there may have been potential bias in the investigation
According to SexMatters, the 2018 version of the document included statements committing to “any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives”. It also labelled transphobic abuse or bullying as including “name-calling/ derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions”. Among many other statements of over a page long.
Stock commented that she “grew increasingly cautious” about her teaching of sex and gender in feminist philosophy. She later resigned due to ongoing protests and campus anger. The 2018 policy had been updated as of 16th August 2022, and further updates were given on 17th January 2023, with added safeguards stating that “nothing in this policy statement should be taken to justify sanctioning academic staff for questioning or testing received wisdom.” Another update was given in 2024.
Thus comes the challenge to the High Court that the statements in question were not governing documents thus cannot be under jurisdiction of the OfS. Stock was interviewed as a witness as the only call to the stand.
Secondly, the University argues that the internal scheme of delegation constitutes internal law and is also outside the OfS conditions. According to Doyle Clayton, internal laws at universities are the “policies that govern the day-to-day operation” and can include academic standards, student disciplinary codes, and staff conduct. Under the Higher Education Act 2023, the OfS has powers to ensure that universities uphold lawful free speech. However, Sussex argues that the OfS adopted an “unlawfully broad” definition of governing documents by treating them as extending to any document describing a provider’s objectives or values, according to The Critic.
The University also plans to argue that the OfS decision was reached in a way that was “procedurally unfair” and “unreasonable”. Lawyers for Sussex argued that there may have been potential bias in the investigation due to a pre-existing friendship between the director for freedom of speech, Dr Arif Ahmed, and Kathleen Stock.
According to Sussex’s lawyers, Ahmed had ‘written publicly in support of Stock’s views, and sent emails of warm encouragement privately’ before taking the role as director. Thus, having already explained what The Critic labelled a “studs-up” approach, by arguing that the OfS had no jurisdiction in the first place with what they would define as Internal Law, the following shape of the OfS investigation could then be considered as unreasonable if the High Court restricts the permissions of investigations of the OfS in light of the Sussex reading of the jurisdiction. Of course, if the Court sees the OfS jurisdiction as including the offending policy as external law, then this would presumably make the investigation reasonable.
According to the BBC, the regulator is expected to argue that the University “failed to follow its own procedures for how it adopted what it describes as ‘governing documents’”. The OfS has also recorded that they offered Sussex a chance to discuss a settlement in October 2022, so long as the University accepts that it “breached regulations”.
This is not the only High Court challenge regarding Universities. As of 16th February 2026, 36 more universities were targeted in a Covid compensation claim, where students claim to seek damages for learning during the pandemic, which students argue they paid for through tuition fees but did not receive due to distance learning. Though the University of Sussex has not yet received a pre-action letter.
Another article you may enjoy – https://thebadgeronline.com/2026/03/results-election-sussex-university/
