Tomorrow, after securing a landmark victory that exposed unlawful treatment by the NHS, the Darlington nurses at the centre of one of the UK’s most high-profile workplace rights cases are returning to court to demand that the Trust pays the price for unsuccessfully fighting their claims.
The nurses, known as the ‘Magnificent Seven’ and the ‘Angels of the North’, will attend a costs hearing at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on Tuesday 1 September 2026, where they are seeking to recover 90 per cent of their legal costs.
The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10am on Tuesday 1 September 2026 at Newcastle Civil and Family Courts and Tribunal Centre, Barras Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne. Several nurses, dubbed the Magnificent Seven and Angels of the North, will be in attendance.
Supported by the Christian Legal Centre The nurses will be represented in court by Niazi Fetto KC and solicitor, Pavel Stroilov, who will argue that as the case progressed, the Trust’s defence had no reasonable prospect of success and that it became unreasonable for the Trust to continue resisting the central claims.
The Trust is contesting the application.
Earlier this year it was reported that the Trust had paid £603,000 defending a policy that allows men into female staff changing rooms.
Following substantial damages paid out to the nurses in June 2026, it was estimated that the Trust’s costs had risen again to £1.25 million.
The costs hearing follows the nurses’ major victory in Hutchison and others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, the judgment in which was published on 16 January 2026.
The case was brought by eight female nurses working in the Day Surgery Unit at Darlington Memorial Hospital.
It arose from the Trust’s policy and practice of permitting a biologically male colleague who identifies as a woman to use the female staff changing room. Staff wearing uniforms were required to change at the hospital, meaning the nurses depended upon the workplace facilities provided by their employer.
The nurses began raising concerns with management in August 2023, but were ignored and told that the policy reflected ‘the inclusivity of the NHS.’
Inaction and escalating concerns about the behaviour of the man in the changing room, led to a formal group complaint in March 2024 signed by 26 members of staff.
This time the nurses’ concerns were not only dismisses but they were told to ‘broaden their mindset’, ‘compromise’ and be ‘more inclusive.’
After taking legal action, a three-week trial took place in October and November 2025.
In a landmark judgment in January 2026, Employment Judge Sweeney and Tribunal members Denise Newey Malcolm Brain ruled that County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust unlawfully discriminated against and harassed the female nurses.
The ruling declared:
“By requiring the Claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman… the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and creating for the Claimants a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment.
“By not taking seriously and declining to address the Claimants’ concerns of August and September 2023 and of 04 April 2024, regarding that part of the Transition in the Workplace Policy that afforded biological males access to the female changing room, the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of creating for the Claimants a hostile and intimidating environment.”
The Tribunal also found that the Trust failed to uphold its legal obligations under the Equality Act by disregarding the nurses’ safeguarding concerns about privacy and dignity.
Under the ‘Transitioning in the Workplace’ policy, female nurses, had been told by the Trust that if they had an issue with getting changed in front of a man who identifies as a woman, they should find alternative changing facilities.
The Tribunal’s judgment concludes: “We were unclear what was meant by the submission that the policy was ‘lawful’ and deeper consideration of the argument led us to conclude that the policy of permitting biological males who identify as women to use a female changing room was not ‘lawful’.” The judgment then points out that the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 requires an employer to provide changing facilities which “include separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women where necessary or reasons of propriety”.
Nurses argue that trial costs could have been avoided
Now, in their application for costs, lawyers argue that several developments should have led the Trust to reconsider its defence before the full trial took place.
On 27 March 2025, the Regional Director of the Royal College of Nursing wrote to the Trust about Regulation 24 of the Workplace Regulations 1992 and urged it to ensure that changing facilities at Darlington Memorial Hospital complied with the law without delay.
On 2 April 2025, when granting the Trust additional time to complete its internal process, the tribunal heavily criticised its approach of prioritising its internal investigation over the legal proceedings.
On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers. Later that month, the Trust’s own investigation report upheld the substantive concerns that a biologically male member of staff had been using the women’s changing facilities and that appropriate changing facilities had not been provided.
It was also reported that in May 2025, then health secretary, Wes Streeting, sent the Chief Regional Nurse for NHS England to the hospital to urgently resolve the issue. The chief nurse apologised to one of the nurses and said the facilities were inadequate and promised immediate action.
The Trust nevertheless continued to defend its policy as lawful and compliant.
The nurses also argue that they were obliged to obtain expert evidence because the Trust continued disputing the proposition that women are generally more likely than men to suffer fear, distress or humiliation if compelled to undress in front of a person of the opposite biological sex.
According to the costs application, the Trust effectively conceded that issue only during closing submissions, after the expert evidence had already been commissioned and presented. The tribunal subsequently treated that evidence as highly significant to both the indirect discrimination and harassment claims.
The nurses further say that they proposed reasonable settlement terms in October 2025, but that the Trust rejected their offer. They will argue that agreement on the central issues would have avoided much of the expense associated with preparing witness evidence and conducting the lengthy final hearing.
“The Trust had repeated opportunities to resolve this”
Bethany Hutchison, one of the nurses who brought the case, and President of the Darlington Nursing Union, said:
“We did not want to spend years in legal proceedings against the NHS Trust for which we worked. We wanted our employer to listen to women, respect our dignity and provide lawful changing facilities in which we could prepare for our shifts in privacy.
“The tribunal vindicated us on the central issues. It found that the Trust’s policy and its failure to take our concerns seriously resulted in harassment and indirect sex discrimination.
“Long before the final hearing, the Trust had repeated opportunities to reconsider its position and resolve this case. The more it was exposed that they had acted unlawfully, the more they dug in and attached us, and we were required to continue preparing for and attending a lengthy trial.
“We now return to the tribunal because we believe the Trust should be held responsible for the substantial legal costs that could and should have been avoided. This is public money, and NHS organisations must be accountable for decisions that expose staff and taxpayers to unnecessary litigation.”
“NHS leaders must count the cost of refusing to listen”
Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which has supported the nurses, said:
“These courageous nurses raised reasonable concerns about dignity, privacy and safety in the workplace. Instead of listening carefully and providing lawful single-sex changing facilities, the Trust pursued a position that the tribunal ultimately found amounted to harassment and indirect sex discrimination.
“By the time of the final hearing, the Trust had the benefit of the relevant regulations, a major Supreme Court judgment, the findings of its own internal investigation and clear warnings about the legal and financial consequences of continuing the case.
“Public bodies should not be permitted to litigate without proper regard to the merits of their position or the cost to the taxpayer. NHS leaders must count the cost of refusing to listen to women and of defending policies that fail to respect their privacy and dignity.
“This hearing is an important next step in securing full accountability for the nurses and ensuring that the lessons of their landmark victory are taken seriously throughout the NHS.”
ENDS
Hearing details
Case: Hutchison and others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
Case number: 2501192/2024 and others
Date: Tuesday 1 September 2026
Time: from 10am
Venue: Newcastle Employment Tribunal, Newcastle Civil and Family Courts and Tribunal Centre, Barras Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8QF
Remote access: contact newcastleet@justice.gov.uk
Contact: tom.allen@christianconcern.com / 07974304620