University wins High Court challenge over record £585,000 freedom of speech fine

A university has won a High Court case against England’s higher education regulator for breaching statutory freedom of expression.

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

The decision follows an investigation lasting more than three years following student protests over gender-critical views by former staff member Professor Kathleen Stock, who resigned in 2021, and the OfS found the university’s policy had a “chilling effect” on possible self-censorship for students and staff on campus.

The OfS fined the university a record £585,000, finding that the policy breached registration conditions and that the university had failed to comply with its own internal rules in adopting the policies.

The university challenged the regulator’s decision in the High Court, saying at a hearing in February that the OfS’ decision had “serious” consequences for the institution and its reputation as a “bastion of free expression”.

The OfS defended the claim, telling the court the investigation was “careful and thorough” and “in accordance with a fair procedure”.

In her judgment on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Lieven ruled in favor of the university, finding that the OfS had “misled itself”.

He also said the regulator’s decision was “overturned for prejudice” because it “approached the decision with a closed mind and therefore unlawfully predetermined the decision”.

The judge said the legal challenge was not about “any issue or fact about what happened to Professor Stock”, but rather “whether the OfS had erred in law in terms of its jurisdiction, its interpretation of the law or the lawfulness of its process”.

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

“The University has always maintained that the OfS took a flawed and absolutist approach to freedom of expression, deliberately disregarded extensive protections for academic freedom and free expression at Sussex, and conducted its torturous three-and-a-half-year investigation with a ‘closed mind’.

“The court’s decision is a comprehensive confirmation of this position.”

Prof Roseneil said the “punitive” decision was a “devastating indictment of the impartiality and competence of the OfS” and that he would seek a meeting with education secretary Bridget Phillipson to discuss its “consequences” for the sector.

Josh Fleming, interim chairman of the OfS, said: “We are of course disappointed with this decision. We will carefully consider the implications of the decision before deciding on next steps. We will reflect on the arbitrator’s findings and use them to help shape our future approach.”

“Our focus remains on students and the sector, and we are pleased that, following our investigation, a dozen institutions, including the University of Sussex, have changed policies restricting freedom of expression. As a result, students and academics should have greater confidence in their ability to freely and candidly explore the thought that characterizes British higher education.”

“It is important to emphasize that this case and the OfS’s investigation are not about the substance of the ongoing debate around sex and gender. Freedom of expression covers all parties to this and other issues; we work to protect lawful expression regardless of its content.

“Ensuring free and robust debate is essential to the continued success of higher education in England, and the OfS’s new complaints program will help us take swift action where free expression rights are restricted.”

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

Updated in 2022 and 2023; The second version stated that it did not justify “sanctioning academic staff for questioning or testing received wisdom or proposing new ideas, including controversial or unpopular views in the law” or “disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression.”

But Mr Buttler said the OfS had mistakenly treated the policy as a “management document”, meaning it was subject to registration conditions, and the regulator had “misinterpreted” the statement to mean it would not prevent disciplinary action being taken against staff.

He also claimed the university, which has more than 19,000 students, had been “singled out” for “punishment” by the OfS for failing to take into account “remedial measures” taken to change the policy.

In her written submission to the OfS, Monica Carss-Frisk KC said the implications of her decision were “unimpeccable” and that she had “identified no reason” to exclude documents demonstrating the university’s “values ​​or objectives” from the definition of “governing documents”.

In its final decision, the OfS found that “a document that threatens a disciplinary investigation” did not support the values ​​of freedom of expression and would “create a chilling effect”, which could harm those under investigation.

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

He also said the regulator had “misled itself” about whether subsequent versions of the statement had failed to protect “freedom of expression within the law”, adding that the agency had “not read the policy statement as a whole”.

The judge also found that the OfS had “closed its mind to anything that would have led to its failure to detect breaches and therefore to impose sanctions on the university”.