About This Case
This case concerns the future of female-only spaces, the meaning of sex in Australian law, and the interaction between sex-based rights and gender identity protections under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).
What began as a dispute over access to a female-only social networking platform became one of the most significant legal cases concerning sex and gender identity ever heard in Australia. On 10 September 2026 the High Court refused special leave to appeal. The court path is now closed. The public and political argument is not.
The Creation of Giggle
Giggle was founded by Sall Grover to provide women with a female-only online space. The platform was created because women increasingly lacked places where they could meet, network, socialise, share experiences, and build communities exclusively with other women.
The platform was designed to operate as a women-only service. Users could connect for friendship, professional networking, support, discussion groups, and community activities. The idea was simple: women should be able to gather in a space reserved for females.
To help keep the platform female-only, Giggle used facial-recognition technology as part of its onboarding process. The system assessed whether a submitted selfie appeared female or male. It was configured to err on the side of inclusion so as not to exclude women unnecessarily. Applications could also be reviewed manually.
How the Dispute Began
In 2021, Roxanne Tickle joined Giggle after completing the onboarding process and used the platform for a period of time.
Later, during a manual review, Sall Grover determined that Tickle did not satisfy Giggle's female-only membership criteria and removed access.
At trial, the judge found there was no evidence that Giggle knew Tickle identified as transgender when access was first removed. The dispute raised the question of how the Sex Discrimination Act should operate where sex-based criteria and gender identity protections intersect.
Proceedings were then brought against Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd and Sall Grover personally.
The Trial Decision
The matter was heard by Justice Bromwich in the Federal Court of Australia.
The Court rejected the claim of direct gender-identity discrimination. It found there was insufficient evidence that Giggle knew Tickle's gender identity at the relevant time.
It found unlawful indirect discrimination: the female-only policy was treated as a condition that disadvantaged transgender women.
The Court also rejected Giggle's argument that the platform was a lawful special measure under section 7D of the Act. Damages of $10,000 were awarded, together with legal costs.
The Appeal
Giggle and Sall Grover appealed to the Full Federal Court. The appeal asked how sex and gender identity interact under the Act, how section 7D special measures work, and what key statutory terms mean.
The appeal was heard in August 2025.
The Full Federal Court Decision
On 15 May 2026 the Full Federal Court dismissed Giggle's appeal and allowed Tickle's cross-appeal.
It held that the conduct was direct discrimination, not indirect discrimination. Damages were increased from $10,000 to $20,000. Costs followed.
The High Court
A special leave application was filed on 12 June 2026. On 10 September 2026 the High Court refused special leave, with costs. It said there was no reason to doubt the Full Court's construction of the Act, and that an appeal had insufficient prospects of success.
That ends the court proceedings on the merits. The Full Federal Court decision stands. We do not accept that the ordinary meaning of "woman" includes males who identify as women, or that this should have been treated as obvious without being proved. Those questions now belong in Parliament.
What Has Happened So Far
The dispute has now been before the Federal Court, the Full Federal Court, and the High Court on special leave. What began as a disagreement about access to a female-only platform became a national case about sex-based rights and gender identity under Australian law.
2021 – Access to the Giggle Platform
Giggle for Girls was created as a female-only social networking platform. In 2021 Roxanne Tickle joined after completing onboarding. Several months later, after a manual review, access was removed because Giggle determined that Tickle did not meet its female-only membership criteria.
Legal proceedings followed under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).
2022–2024 – Federal Court Proceedings
The trial was heard by Justice Bromwich. Giggle argued that the platform existed to provide a female-only space for women and that the Act permitted that service.
On 23 August 2024 judgment was delivered. Direct discrimination was rejected. Indirect discrimination was found. Damages of $10,000 were awarded, together with legal costs.
2024–2025 – Appeal to the Full Federal Court
Giggle and Sall Grover appealed. Tickle cross-appealed. The Full Federal Court heard the matter in August 2025.
15 May 2026 – Full Federal Court Judgment
The Court dismissed Giggle's appeal and allowed the cross-appeal. It found two acts of direct discrimination and increased damages to $20,000.
12 June 2026 – Special Leave Application
Giggle filed an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
10 September 2026 – High Court
The High Court refused special leave, with costs. It said there was no reason to doubt the Full Court's construction of the relevant provisions, and that an appeal dependent on showing error in that construction had insufficient prospects of success.
Where Things Stand Today
There will be no High Court hearing of the appeal. The Full Federal Court decision is the last word of the courts on the legal questions. Costs of the special leave application have been awarded against Giggle and Sall Grover. The amount is still to be worked out.
The remaining path is political: amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act so women can again create and maintain female-only spaces on the basis of sex.
What Happens Now
The High Court will not hear this appeal. Special leave was refused on 10 September 2026, with costs.
That is a hard result. It does not mean the questions in this case were unimportant. It means the Court declined to take them on. The Full Federal Court decision remains the law unless Parliament changes the Act.
Costs
The High Court ordered that special leave be refused with costs. The figure is not yet final. Meeting that liability is the first call on funds raised now.
Parliament
Only Parliament can restore a clear sex-based foundation for female-only spaces. After the Full Court judgment, Opposition Leader Angus Taylor said Australian law does not properly protect single-sex spaces for women and girls, and that a Coalition government would define sex in the Act as the sex you are born and protect single-sex spaces.
That is now a political contest. It will be decided by voters and by legislation, not by another appeal.
What we will keep arguing
- Sex in the Sex Discrimination Act should mean the two reproductive classes, not identity.
- Gender identity is already a separate protected attribute. It should not silently rewrite the word "woman".
- Special measures for men and women should still be able to operate as sex-based measures.
- Women should be able to create and maintain female-only spaces without that being treated as unlawful.
What supporters can do
Help us meet the costs order. Share the record of what the courts actually decided. Press members of Parliament to amend the Act so sex-based rights for women and girls are secure.
The Full Federal Court Decision
On 15 May 2026 the Full Federal Court delivered judgment in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle [2026] FCAFC 64.
The Court dismissed Giggle's appeal and allowed Roxanne Tickle's cross-appeal.
What the Court Decided
The Full Court held that excluding Tickle from the app, and later refusing to readmit her, was direct discrimination on the ground of gender identity under section 5B of the Sex Discrimination Act. It said the exclusion was based on gender-related appearance.
That differed from the trial. Justice Bromwich had found indirect discrimination and rejected direct discrimination. The Full Court substituted a finding of two acts of direct discrimination.
Damages were increased from $10,000 to $20,000. Costs orders followed, subject to earlier caps on the appeal.
Special measures
The Full Court upheld a distributive reading of section 7D. On that reading, a special measure for men and women does not answer a gender-identity claim. The Court therefore said it did not need to decide whether the Giggle app was a special measure for women at all.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The Court did not decide every public question raised by the case. It decided the dispute before it. Broader questions about female-only services, sport, refuges, and the legal meaning of sex remain live in Parliament and in public debate.
Why We Disagreed
We disagreed with the conclusion that "woman" in this Act follows identity or appearance rather than sex. We also disagreed with the reading of section 7D that leaves a women-only measure exposed to a gender-identity claim. In our view those conclusions were treated as ordinary meaning and policy, not as something the text compelled.
The High Court Refusal
On 10 September 2026 the High Court refused special leave, with costs ([2026] HCADisp 209). It said there was no reason to doubt the Full Court's construction, and that an appeal had insufficient prospects of success.
The High Court did not hear argument on the merits. The Full Court judgment is the last judicial word on the construction of the Act in this case.
Why This Matters
This case was never only about one app. It asked whether women can still establish and maintain spaces created specifically for women, and how the Sex Discrimination Act balances sex and gender identity.
The courts have given their answer. That does not end the public question.
Female-Only Spaces
Australian law has long recognised settings in which women may need spaces and services reserved for women: refuges, support services, sport, networking groups, accommodation, and community organisations.
The decisions in this case make those arrangements harder to defend where a person who identifies as a woman is excluded. That is why the next step is a change to the Act, not another appeal.
Women in the Digital Age
Giggle was an attempt to give women a female-only community online. The same legal problem now sits over digital spaces that once sat over physical ones.
Women's Rights and Anti-Discrimination Law
The Sex Discrimination Act was enacted to protect people from unfair treatment and to advance equality between men and women. Later amendments added gender identity as a separate protected attribute.
This case shows what happens when those attributes collide and the sex class is read as including people of the other sex who identify into it. Similar collisions are being argued in legislatures and institutions here and overseas.
Why Supporters Stood With This Case
People supported this case because they want female-only spaces to remain lawful, because they want sex to remain a real legal category, or because they thought the High Court should have heard the construction questions.
The High Court declined. The work now is to keep those questions in front of Parliament and the public, and to meet the costs of having taken them as far as the court system allows.
Use of Funds
Funds raised now will support:
- Adverse costs of the High Court special leave application, and below court costs as assessed.
- Remaining solicitors' and counsel work on the costs process.
- Any outstanding litigation expenses from the proceedings.
- Public explanation of the trial, appeal, and High Court refusal.
- Media and public-interest work on sex-based rights and female-only spaces.
- Activities supporting legislative reform of the Sex Discrimination Act.
All Donations Are Gifts
All funds donated through this crowdfunding campaign on GiveSendGo are donated by way of gift to Sall Grover.
Donations are voluntary and are made to support the public-interest objectives described on this website.
Donors do not receive any ownership interest, repayment right, financial return, entitlement, or other commercial benefit in exchange for their contribution.
Donations are not investments and should not be made with any expectation of financial gain or repayment.