University of Sussex Triumphs in High Court Over OfS Free Speech Fine

The University of Sussex has achieved a significant legal victory by overturning a record £585,000 fine imposed by the Office for Students (OfS), the higher education regulator in England. On April 29, 2026, the High Court ruled that the OfS's decision was flawed, citing errors in law, an overly absolutist approach to free speech, and evidence of bias in the regulatory process. This landmark judgment, stemming from a challenge related to the university's handling of gender-critical views, has sparked widespread debate on balancing freedom of speech with equality obligations in UK universities.

Mrs Justice Lieven, delivering the ruling, criticized the OfS for approaching the case with a 'closed mind' and failing to properly consider the university's Freedom of Speech Code of Practice (FOSCOP). The decision not only quashes the fine but also raises profound questions about the regulator's enforcement powers under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (HERA).

Origins of the Dispute: Kathleen Stock's Resignation and Protests

The saga traces back to 2021 when Professor Kathleen Stock, a philosopher specializing in aesthetics and epistemology, resigned from her position at the University of Sussex amid intense student protests. Stock's gender-critical views—that biological sex cannot be changed and should take precedence over gender identity in certain legal and policy contexts—drew accusations of transphobia from activists. Protests included graffiti on campus walls labeling her a 'transphobe' and calls for her dismissal, prompting police advice for her to avoid the campus.

Stock claimed the university's Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement (TNBEPS), introduced in 2018, contributed to a chilling effect on her ability to express lawful opinions. The policy urged staff to 'positively represent trans people and trans lives' and warned against 'transphobic propaganda' in teaching materials. While Stock was not dismissed—university statutes prohibit termination for academic opinions—she self-censored in her teaching and ultimately left.

OfS Investigation: Record Fine for Free Speech and Governance Breaches

The OfS launched an investigation not directly into Stock's individual case but into Sussex's institutional compliance. In March 2025, it issued the highest monetary penalty in its history: £585,000, split as £360,000 for breaching condition E1 (public interest governance principles, including free speech and academic freedom) and £225,000 for condition E2 (inadequate management and governance).

The regulator argued the TNBEPS created a 'chilling effect,' potentially indirectly discriminating under the Equality Act 2010 and conflicting with section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which mandates universities to secure freedom of speech within the law. Governance issues arose from decisions on equality and speech made by unauthorized staff, bypassing proper delegation schemes. This was the OfS's first free speech enforcement action, intended as a signal to the sector.

The Judicial Review: Key Errors in OfS's Approach

Sussex mounted a judicial review, arguing the OfS overreached. The High Court agreed on multiple grounds:

• The TNBEPS was not a 'governing document' under HERA section 14, limited to constitutional items like charters—not mid-level policies.
• OfS ignored the FOSCOP, rendering its E1 analysis irrational.
• An absolutist view of free speech overlooked proportionality; policies can restrict harmful stereotypes if balanced.
• Predetermination and bias: OfS leadership, including former CEO Susan Lapworth, treated Sussex as a 'test case' to publicize enforcement, refusing settlement without full breach admission.
• Failure to assess remedies: Sussex had amended the policy by 2024, adding safeguards.

The full High Court judgment details these flaws across 74 pages.

Stakeholder Reactions: Relief, Criticism, and Calls for Reform

University Vice-Chancellor Professor Sasha Roseneil hailed the ruling as a 'devastating indictment' of the OfS's 'impartiality, competence, operations, leadership, governance and strategy.' She urged Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson to review the regulator's expanding powers.

The OfS, led by interim CEO Josh Fleming, expressed disappointment and is considering an appeal, rejecting the bias finding but pledging process improvements. Universities UK (UUK) called for a 'reset' to rebuild trust. On X (formerly Twitter), reactions ranged from celebrations of the university's vindication to concerns over weakened free speech protections.

Revisiting Equality Policies: The 'Watered-Down' Debate

The judgment prompts UK universities to reassess trans and equality policies. The OfS fine targeted the 2018 TNBEPS for potentially stifling debate, but the court affirmed proportionality—policies can promote inclusion without absolutism. Sussex's updated 2024 version, cross-referencing laws like the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, was deemed compliant.

Some view this as license to 'water down' robust equality commitments, fearing litigation. Others see it affirming balance: free speech subordinate to FOSCOP, with equality duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty intact. Post-fine, over a dozen institutions amended policies, enhancing speech confidence. For details on the original OfS decision, see their press release.

Free Speech Landscape in UK Higher Education

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 bolsters protections, effective August 2025. From autumn 2026, a dedicated OfS complaints scheme allows direct reports from academics and speakers. Fines up to £500,000 or 2% of income loom from April 2027 for serious breaches.

While no other fines yet, complaints rose sharply. The Sussex case highlights tensions between speech absolutism and equality.

Implications for University Governance and Careers

Administrators must prioritize FOSCOP hierarchy, ensuring policies reference statutes explicitly. Academics in contested fields—gender, decolonization—gain clarity: lawful views protected unless harassing. This fosters open debate, vital for research integrity.

For careers, clear policies reduce chilling effects, aiding recruitment. Explore higher education jobs amid evolving regulations.

Photo by Chris Johnson on Unsplash

Future Outlook: OfS Reform and Sector Balance

The ruling narrows OfS E1 scope, shifting focus to new A1 duties. An appeal could clarify, but Universities UK seeks collaborative regulation. With Labour's review of the Free Speech Act, proportionality may prevail, allowing nuanced equality policies without fear of punitive fines.

Stakeholders anticipate fewer adversarial probes, more guidance. For in-depth analysis, read Wonkhe's breakdown. UK higher education stands at a crossroads, prioritizing both expression and inclusion.