A university has won a High Court challenge against England’s higher education regulator over a finding that it had infringed on lawful free speech.

The University of Sussex took legal action against the Office for Students (OfS) last year over the watchdog’s decision in March 2025 that the university had breached conditions of registration through its trans and non-binary equality policy statement.

The decision came after a more than three-year investigation following student protests related to the gender-critical views of former staff member Professor Kathleen Stock.

She resigned after the protests in response to her views in 2021, with the OfS finding the university’s policy had “a chilling effect” of possible self-censorship of students and staff on campus.

The OfS found the policy breached registration conditions and that the university had not acted in accordance with its internal rules for adopting policies, handing it a record £585,000 fine.

The university, which has more than 19,000 students, challenged the regulator’s decision at the High Court, telling a hearing in February that the OfS’s decision had “severe” consequences for the institution and on its reputation as a “bastion of free speech”.

The OfS defended the claim, telling the court the investigation was “careful and detailed” and “pursuant to a fair procedure”.

In a judgment on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Lieven ruled in the university’s favour, finding the OfS “misdirected itself”.

She also said the regulator’s decision was “vitiated by bias” as it approached the decision “with a closed mind and had therefore unlawfully predetermined the decision”.

The university called the High Court ruling a ‘good day’ (Image: Na)

The judge said the legal challenge did not concern “any of the issues or facts surrounding what happened to Professor Stock”, but instead “is concerned with whether the OfS erred in law, either in respect of its jurisdiction, its interpretation of the law, or the lawfulness of its process”.

In a statement following the ruling, Professor Sasha Roseneil, the vice-chancellor and president of the university, said: “Today is a good day for the University of Sussex, and a good day for everyone who cares about the proper and effective governance and regulation of universities.

“The university has always maintained that the OfS adopted an erroneous and absolutist approach to freedom of speech, that it deliberately ignored comprehensive protections of academic freedom and freedom of speech at Sussex, and that it prosecuted its torturous three-and-a-half-year long investigation with a ‘closed mind’.

“The court’s judgment is a comprehensive vindication of that position.”

Prof Roseneil said the “excoriating” judgment is a “devastating indictment of the impartiality and competence of the OfS”, and she will seek a meeting with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson to discuss its “implications” for the sector.

In written submissions for the hearing in February, Chris Buttler KC, for the university, said the trans and non-binary equality policy was adopted in 2018 and “sought to promote the fair treatment on campus of trans and non-binary members of staff and students”.

It was updated in 2022 and 2023, with the latter version saying it did not justify “sanctioning academic staff for questioning or testing received wisdom or putting forward new ideas, including controversial or unpopular opinions within the law”, or “disproportionate restrictions on freedom of speech”.

But Mr Buttler said the OfS wrongly deemed the policy to be a “governing document”, which meant it was subject to registration conditions, and that the regulator “misinterpreted” the statement to mean it would not prevent disciplinary action being taken against staff.

He also claimed the university was “singled out” for “punishment” by the OfS as it did not take into account “remedial action” taken to change the policy.

Monica Carss-Frisk KC said in written submissions for the OfS that the conclusions in its decision were “unimpeachable” and the university “has identified no reason at all” for excluding documents showing its “values or objectives” from the definition of “governing documents”.

She continued that the OfS’s final decision found a “document which nevertheless threatened disciplinary action” failed to uphold values related to freedom of speech and would “create a chilling effect” which could still cause harm to those under investigation.

Traders group calls out ‘major obstacles’ to doing business in famous market town

Traders group calls out ‘major obstacles’ to doing business in famous market town

Man charged following death and serious injury at seafront property

Man charged following death and serious injury at seafront property

Man describes ‘horrible stench’ after bin fire erupts metres from his house

Man describes ‘horrible stench’ after bin fire erupts metres from his house

But in her 74-page ruling, Mrs Justice Lieven said the OfS had made a “clear error of law” and that a “chilling effect and potential for stress and anxiety are irrelevant considerations”.

She also said the regulator “misdirected itself” on whether the later versions of the statement “failed to protect ‘freedom of speech within the law’”, adding the body “failed to read the policy statement as a whole”.

The judge also found the OfS “closed its mind to anything that would lead to not finding breaches and being unable to therefore sanction the university”.