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 has become one of the most significant legal cases concerning sex and gender identity ever heard in Australia. The litigation has attracted national and international attention because the outcome has implications far beyond the Giggle platform itself.

The Creation of Giggle

Giggle was founded by Sall Grover to provide women with a female-only online space. The platform was created in response to concerns that 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 concept behind Giggle was simple: women should be able to gather together in a space reserved for females, just as women have historically been able to do in many areas of society.

To assist with maintaining the female-only nature of the platform, Giggle used facial-recognition technology as part of its onboarding process. The system was designed to identify whether a user appeared to be female or male from a submitted selfie. The technology was intentionally 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 the Giggle platform after successfully completing the onboarding process. Tickle subsequently used the platform for a period of time.

Later, during a manual review process, Sall Grover determined that Tickle did not satisfy Giggle's female-only membership criteria and access to the platform was removed.

At the time of the removal, the trial judge found there was no evidence that Giggle knew Tickle identified as transgender. The dispute therefore raised complex legal questions about how Australian anti-discrimination law should operate where sex-based criteria and gender identity protections intersect.

Following the removal, legal proceedings were commenced against Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd and Sall Grover personally under the Sex Discrimination Act.

The Trial Decision

The matter was heard before Justice Bromwich in the Federal Court of Australia.

The Court rejected the claim that Giggle had directly discriminated against Tickle on the basis of gender identity. Justice Bromwich concluded there was insufficient evidence that Giggle knew Tickle's gender identity at the relevant time.

However, the Court found that Giggle had engaged in unlawful indirect discrimination. The reasoning was that the female-only policy imposed a condition or requirement that had a disproportionate impact on transgender women and was therefore unlawful under the Act.

The Court also rejected Giggle's argument that the platform qualified as a lawful "special measure" under section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act. Special measures are provisions designed to advance equality for particular groups and have historically played an important role in protecting opportunities and services for women.

Damages of $10,000 were awarded to Tickle together with legal costs.

The Appeal

Giggle and Sall Grover appealed the decision to the Full Federal Court of Australia.

The appeal raised a number of important legal questions concerning the interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act, including the relationship between sex-based protections and gender identity protections, the operation of section 7D special measures, and the proper interpretation of key statutory terms.

The appeal also attracted interventions and submissions from organisations and parties with a broader interest in the legal issues raised by the case.

The matter was heard before the Full Federal Court in August 2025.

The Full Federal Court Decision

On 15 May 2026, the Full Federal Court delivered its judgment.

The Court dismissed Giggle's appeal and allowed Tickle's cross-appeal.

In a significant development, the Full Court concluded that the conduct constituted direct discrimination rather than indirect discrimination. The Court therefore altered the legal basis on which liability was established.

The damages awarded to Tickle were increased from $10,000 to $20,000. Costs consequences also followed from the outcome.

The decision represents one of the most important Australian judgments concerning the interaction of sex-based rights and gender identity protections.

Why We Are Seeking High Court Review

Giggle and Sall Grover respectfully disagree with important aspects of the reasoning adopted by both the trial court and the Full Federal Court.

In our view, the case raises questions of national significance concerning the meaning of sex, the operation of sex-based protections, the scope of lawful special measures, and the ability of women to establish and maintain female-only spaces.

These questions extend far beyond the Giggle platform and affect how Australian law balances competing rights and interests in many different settings.

For that reason, we are preparing an application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia.

Why This Matters

The issues raised by this case affect a broad range of organisations, services, and communities. The outcome may influence how Australian law approaches female-only spaces, women's services, sporting participation, advocacy organisations, online communities, and other areas where sex-based distinctions have historically been recognised.

Whatever view people may hold about the broader policy questions, this litigation presents issues of substantial public importance. The High Court now has an opportunity to provide clarity on some of the most significant legal questions currently facing Australian anti-discrimination law.

We are grateful to everyone who has supported this effort. Your support enables these issues to be fully argued and considered through Australia's legal system.

What Has Happened So Far

The legal dispute between Giggle for Girls and Roxanne Tickle has now been before both the Federal Court of Australia and the Full Federal Court. What began as a disagreement about access to a female-only social networking platform has evolved into a nationally significant case concerning the interaction between sex-based rights and gender identity protections under Australian law.

2021 – Access to the Giggle Platform

Giggle for Girls was created as a female-only social networking platform. In February 2021, Roxanne Tickle joined the platform after completing Giggle's onboarding process. Several months later, following a manual review, access to the platform was removed because Giggle determined that Tickle did not satisfy its female-only membership criteria.

Following the removal, legal proceedings were commenced alleging unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

2022–2024 – Federal Court Proceedings

The matter proceeded to trial before Justice Bromwich of the Federal Court of Australia.

During the proceedings, Giggle argued that the platform existed to provide a female-only space for women and that Australian law permitted the operation of such a service. The case raised questions concerning the meaning of sex, the operation of gender identity protections, and the availability of the special measures provisions contained within the Sex Discrimination Act.

On 23 August 2024, Justice Bromwich delivered judgment.

The Court rejected the claim of direct discrimination, finding there was insufficient evidence that Giggle knew of Tickle's gender identity at the time access was removed.

However, the Court found that Giggle had engaged in unlawful indirect discrimination and awarded Tickle damages of $10,000, together with legal costs.

2024–2025 – Appeal to the Full Federal Court

Giggle and Sall Grover appealed the decision, arguing that the judgment contained significant legal errors and raised issues of considerable public importance.

The appeal was heard by the Full Federal Court of Australia in August 2025.

The proceedings attracted substantial public interest and were closely followed by supporters and critics alike because of the broader implications for female-only spaces and the interpretation of Australian anti-discrimination law.

15 May 2026 – Full Federal Court Judgment

On 15 May 2026, the Full Federal Court delivered its decision.

The Court dismissed Giggle's appeal and upheld Tickle's cross-appeal.

Importantly, the Court concluded that the conduct constituted direct discrimination rather than indirect discrimination. The Court also increased the damages awarded to Tickle from $10,000 to $20,000.

The judgment represents one of the most significant Australian decisions concerning the relationship between sex-based rights and gender identity protections.

June 2026 – Preparing for the High Court

Giggle and Sall Grover respectfully disagree with important aspects of the Full Federal Court's reasoning and are now preparing an application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia.

The application must be filed by 10 June 2026.

If special leave is granted, the High Court will have the opportunity to consider questions that Giggle believes are of national importance, including the operation of sex-based protections, the meaning of sex within Australian law, and the ability of women to establish and maintain female-only spaces.

Where Things Stand Today

Today, the litigation has reached a critical point. The Full Federal Court has delivered its judgment, but Giggle is seeking to take the matter to Australia's highest court.

The next stage is the Special Leave Application. If successful, the High Court will determine whether these issues should proceed to a full appeal hearing. The outcome may have lasting consequences for the interpretation of Australian anti-discrimination law and for the future of female-only spaces across the country.

Why We Are Seeking High Court Review

The Full Federal Court has now delivered its judgment. While we respect the role of the Court and the judicial process, Giggle and Sall Grover respectfully disagree with important aspects of the Court's reasoning and conclusions.

We believe this case raises questions of national significance that deserve consideration by Australia's highest court.

The issues extend well beyond Giggle itself. They affect how Australian law understands sex, how anti-discrimination protections operate, and whether women can continue to establish and maintain female-only spaces in accordance with the purposes for which those spaces were created.

Questions We Believe Require Clarification

In our view, this case raises several important legal questions that remain unresolved.

  • How should the term "sex" be interpreted within the Sex Discrimination Act?
  • How should sex-based rights interact with gender identity protections?
  • What role should biological sex play within Australia's anti-discrimination framework?
  • When can organisations lawfully create spaces and services exclusively for women?
  • How should the special measures provisions contained in section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act operate?
  • What limits exist when competing protected characteristics come into conflict?

We believe these questions are of broad public importance because they affect not only online platforms, but also many other organisations, services, and institutions throughout Australia.

The Importance of Special Measures

One of the central issues in this litigation concerns section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act.

Special measures are provisions designed to assist disadvantaged groups and to promote substantive equality. Historically, such measures have played an important role in advancing opportunities, safety, privacy, and participation for women.

Giggle was created as a space exclusively for women. We maintain that the proper interpretation and operation of section 7D remains an important legal issue requiring further clarification.

The Meaning of Sex in Law

Another important issue concerns the interpretation of sex within Australian law.

For many supporters of this case, the central question is whether biological sex remains a meaningful legal category capable of supporting sex-based rights and protections.

The answer to that question affects not only Giggle, but also the future operation of many female-only services, organisations, sporting categories, facilities, and programs throughout Australia.

Why This Matters Beyond Giggle

This litigation is not simply about one social networking platform.

The legal principles established by the courts may influence how future disputes involving women's spaces, services, organisations, sporting participation, advocacy groups, and other sex-based initiatives are resolved.

For that reason, many people view this case as an important test of how Australian law balances competing rights and interests in a rapidly changing social and legal environment.

Why We Believe the High Court Should Hear the Case

The High Court does not exist to correct every legal error. Instead, it generally hears cases that raise questions of public importance, questions requiring clarification, or issues affecting the administration of justice across Australia.

We believe this case meets that threshold.

The questions raised by this litigation affect millions of Australians and have consequences extending far beyond the parties involved in this dispute.

We therefore intend to seek Special Leave to Appeal so that Australia's highest court has the opportunity to consider these issues and provide authoritative guidance on the operation of the law.

What Happens Next

The next step is the filing of a Special Leave Application with the High Court of Australia.

If special leave is granted, the matter will proceed to a full High Court appeal. If leave is refused, the Full Federal Court's decision will remain the final determination of the case.

Whatever the outcome, we believe these questions deserve the fullest possible consideration within Australia's legal system.

The Full Federal Court Decision

On 15 May 2026, the Full Federal Court of Australia delivered its judgment in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle.

The Court dismissed Giggle's appeal and upheld Roxanne Tickle's cross-appeal.

The decision marked a significant development in Australian anti-discrimination law and is likely to be regarded as one of the most important judgments concerning the interaction between sex-based rights and gender identity protections.

What the Court Decided

The Full Federal Court concluded that the exclusion of Roxanne Tickle from the Giggle platform amounted to unlawful direct discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

This differed from the conclusion reached by Justice Bromwich at first instance.

At trial, the Court found that Giggle had engaged in indirect discrimination but rejected the claim of direct discrimination. The Full Court reached a different conclusion and determined that direct discrimination had occurred.

The Court also increased the damages awarded to Tickle from $10,000 to $20,000 and made consequential orders concerning legal costs.

Why the Decision Was Significant

The judgment is significant because it addressed the relationship between sex-based policies and gender identity protections within the framework of Australian anti-discrimination law.

The Court's reasoning has implications beyond the parties involved in this litigation. The legal principles discussed in the judgment may influence future disputes involving female-only services, organisations, facilities, programs, and online communities.

For many observers, the case has become a focal point in a broader discussion about how Australian law should balance competing rights and interests when questions of sex and gender identity arise.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The judgment did not resolve every question that has emerged during public discussion of the case.

While the Court determined the dispute before it, broader questions concerning the future operation of female-only spaces, the role of biological sex within Australian law, and the interaction between competing protected characteristics continue to be debated.

Those issues remain the subject of ongoing legal, political, and public discussion both in Australia and internationally.

Why We Disagree with the Decision

Giggle and Sall Grover respectfully disagree with important aspects of the Full Federal Court's reasoning.

In our view, the judgment raises significant questions concerning the operation of sex-based protections, the proper interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act, and the extent to which women can establish and maintain spaces created specifically for women.

We also believe the case raises important questions concerning the operation of section 7D special measures and the role that sex continues to play as a legally recognised category within Australian law.

These issues affect far more than a single social networking platform. They may influence how future courts approach female-only spaces and services across a wide range of settings.

Why High Court Review Matters

Australia's High Court exists to hear cases involving questions of national importance and to provide authoritative guidance on significant legal issues.

We believe this case raises questions that deserve consideration by Australia's highest court.

For that reason, Giggle and Sall Grover are preparing an application for Special Leave to Appeal.

If special leave is granted, the High Court will have the opportunity to consider issues that extend well beyond this dispute and that may shape the future interpretation of Australian anti-discrimination law for many years to come.

Why This Matters

Supporters of Sall believe this case is about much more than a single social networking platform.

At its heart, the case raises questions about whether women can continue to establish and maintain spaces, services, organisations, and communities created specifically for women, and how Australian law should balance sex-based rights with gender identity protections.

The answers to those questions may affect many areas of Australian life for decades to come.

Female-Only Spaces

For generations, Australian law has recognised circumstances in which women may benefit from spaces and services reserved exclusively for women. These spaces have often been created to provide privacy, safety, support, dignity, and equal opportunity.

Examples include women's refuges, support services for victims of violence, female sporting competitions, women's networking organisations, female-only accommodation arrangements, and community groups established specifically for women.

Supporters of Giggle argue that women should continue to have the ability to create and maintain such spaces where the law permits them to do so.

Women in the Digital Age

Much of modern life now takes place online.

Professional networking, community building, social interaction, support groups, business development, education, and advocacy increasingly occur through digital platforms.

Giggle was created to provide women with a female-only online community. This case therefore raises questions about whether the same principles that have historically applied to physical spaces can also apply in the digital environment.

The outcome may influence how future online communities and services are designed and operated.

Women's Rights and Anti-Discrimination Law

The Sex Discrimination Act was originally enacted to protect people from unfair discrimination and to advance equality.

Over time, the Act has expanded to include additional protected characteristics and protections. As a result, courts are increasingly required to resolve situations where different rights and interests may come into conflict.

This case highlights the challenges that can arise when sex-based rights and gender identity protections intersect.

The questions raised by this litigation are not unique to Australia. Similar debates are taking place in courts, legislatures, sporting organisations, educational institutions, and workplaces around the world.

The Importance of Legal Clarity

Regardless of where people stand on the broader policy issues, there is widespread agreement that the law should be clear, predictable, and capable of being applied consistently.

Individuals, organisations, businesses, charities, sporting bodies, educational institutions, and community groups all benefit from clear legal guidance regarding their rights and obligations.

Supporters of this appeal believe the questions raised by the Giggle litigation warrant further consideration so that greater legal certainty can be achieved.

Why Supporters Are Standing With Sall Grover and her company Giggle

People support this case for many different reasons.

Some support the continued existence of female-only spaces. Some are concerned about the future operation of sex-based protections. Others believe the legal issues involved are important enough to be considered by Australia's highest court regardless of the eventual outcome.

What unites supporters is a belief that these questions deserve careful examination and that issues of this significance should receive the fullest possible consideration within Australia's legal system.

A Decision That May Reach Beyond This Case

The outcome of the High Court process may influence future cases involving female-only services, sporting participation, community organisations, advocacy groups, educational institutions, and digital platforms.

For that reason, many people view this litigation as one of the most important legal disputes concerning sex-based rights and gender identity protections ever considered by Australian courts.

Whatever the eventual outcome, the questions raised by this case will continue to shape public discussion, legal debate, and policy development across Australia for many years to come.

Use of Funds

Funds raised will support:

    • Preparation and filing of the High Court Special Leave Application.
    • Legal research, drafting, and preparation of written submissions.
    • Solicitors' fees, barristers' fees, senior counsel fees, and other professional legal services.
    • A full High Court appeal if Special Leave is granted.
    • Court filing fees, transcript costs, document management, and other litigation expenses.
    • Expert reports, legal analysis, and specialist advice where required.
    • Adverse costs exposure arising from the proceedings.
    • Media engagement, public education, and public-interest advocacy relating to the legal issues raised by the case.
    • Activities supporting legislative reform of the Sex Discrimination Act and the protection of sex-based rights.
    • Post-hearing legal work, related proceedings, and ongoing public-interest initiatives arising from the case.
    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.

Target Required: Over $1,000,000