Australian court upholds trans discrimination ruling, doubles damages in Giggle case

The Full Federal Court in Sydney left Roxanne Tickle with a stronger victory and a larger award, dismissing Sall Grover’s appeal, allowing Tickle’s cross-appeal and doubling damages from AU$10,000 to AU$20,000 plus limited legal costs. The panel went further than the 2024 trial judge, finding two acts of direct discrimination rather than indirect discrimination and affirming that Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd and its founder and chief executive unlawfully excluded Tickle from the women-only app because of her gender identity.

The dispute began in 2021, when Tickle entered the platform after submitting a selfie that was screened with artificial intelligence software designed to distinguish male and female facial appearance. Her account was later restricted, and the original Federal Court ruling on August 23, 2024, found indirect discrimination and set compensation at AU$10,000. The appeal judgment sharpened that conclusion and became the first major appellate test of the gender identity protections added to Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act in 2013.

Outside the courthouse, Tickle said she hoped the decision would help trans and gender-diverse people and their loved ones heal, while Grover said on X that she was devastated and intended to seek review in the High Court of Australia. Alice Taylor of Bond University said the ruling showed the law is meant to eliminate discrimination on the basis of gender identity and should be applied as broadly as possible. Equality Australia said the judgment confirmed that trans women have the right to live free from discrimination and that the court took account of Grover’s aggravating conduct when setting the higher award.

Beyond the immediate parties, the ruling is likely to matter for app design, identity verification and any platform that tries to build women-only digital spaces by screening users on appearance. The court said the Sex Discrimination Act does not create a hierarchy of rights or allow discrimination on one ground simply because a policy is framed as helping people protected on another ground, a line that may shape future fights over who gets excluded from online spaces and on what basis.