Category: Australia

Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle [2026] FCAFC 64

Appeal from:
Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960
 
 
File number:
NSD 1386 of 2024
 
 
Judgment of:
PERRY, ABRAHAM AND KENNETT JJ
 
 
Date of judgment:
15 May 2026

HUMAN RIGHTS – where the respondent registered for the appellants’ women-only mobile phone application – where access was granted by AI software but then restricted upon review by an individual – where the respondent sought re-admission to the application and the appellants refused – where the primary judge made a declaration that the appellants engaged in unlawful indirect discrimination under s 5B(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) – where the appellants challenge this declaration and the respondent cross-appeals seeking a declaration that the appellants engaged in direct discrimination – whether the appellants engaged in unlawful direct discrimination in contravention of s 5B(1) of the SDA on the basis of gender identity by excluding the respondent from the application and then refusing to re-admit the respondent to the application

Source: Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle [2026] FCAFC 64

Court upholds discrimination ruling on appeal after transgender woman excluded from Giggle for Girls app | ABC News

In short:

A court ruling that the exclusion of transgender woman Roxanne Tickle from a female-only app was discriminatory has been upheld.

Roxanne Tickle has been awarded $20,000 in damages in the case against the Giggle for Girls app and its CEO Sall Grover.

A judge previously ruled Ms Tickle was discriminated against due to her gender identity after her access to the social media platform was restricted in 2021.

—–
The full court of the Federal Court — comprised of Justices Melissa Perry, Wendy Abraham and Geoffrey Kennett — on Friday found there were two instances of direct discrimination against Ms Tickle.

That included when Giggle and Ms Grover refused to re-admit Ms Tickle.

The court has reassessed damages and awarded $20,000 plus limited court costs.

Ms Grover left the Federal Court without making any comment.

Ms Grover’s lawyers had attempted to invoke a carve out of discrimination law which exempts measures designed to achieve substantive equality between men and women, but that contention failed.

The appeal judges found the primary judge was correct in his decision in relation to the special measures argument.

Stella Prize: women’s book award hits peak woke | The Australian

There is a particular kind of moment that defines the current cultural era – when an institution founded for one purpose becomes the loudest celebrant of its own undoing. Australia’s Stella Prize, the country’s premier literary award for women, has just had such a moment.


This year’s $60,000 prize was awarded to Lee Lai for her graphic novel Cannon. Lai is a biological female and uses female pronouns but identifies as transgender and presents as a man. A literary prize for women, in other words, has just been handed with great fanfare to a woman who has publicly stepped out of the category of “woman.” If there is a more efficient illustration of what peak woke looks like in 2026, it is hard to think of one.


When the Stella was founded in 2012, the rationale was clear and compelling. Australia’s most prestigious literary award, the Miles Franklin, had a long record of overlooking female writers. In its first fifty years only a handful of women had won. Whether that imbalance reflected entrenched bias among judges, or simply the strongest books in any given year, the outcome for women was the same – they were missing out on the platform, support and recognition the award confers.


The Stella – named, fittingly, after Miles Franklin’s own first name – was created to correct that. It was a women’s prize, for women writers, championed by women publishers, editors and authors who believed that female authors deserved equal recognition.This is not a piece about an individual writer’s worth. It has thrown a double standard into sharp focus: women’s categories are increasingly available to anyone who steps inside them.

The cheering of a woman who has set aside her womanhood for a trans-identity is also, unmistakably, a signal that a biological man who claims a female identity would be welcomed with open arms.

Source: Subscribe to The Australian | Newspaper home delivery, website, iPad, iPhone & Android apps

Giggle v Tickle: Landmark court ruling could decide future of female-only spaces | The Australian

Women are about to learn whether they have the right to their own spaces based on biological sex, or whether that right is overridden by someone’s self-identified gender, in a landmark court ruling set to define the meaning of “man” and “woman” in Australian law. 

On Friday, the Full Court of the Federal Court will deliver its judgment in the appeal by Giggle app founder Sall Grover against a decision by judge Robert Bromwich that she indirectly discriminated against transgender woman Roxanne Tickle by rejecting her from the female-only networking app because she appeared to be a man. 

The milestone decision, to be delivered by Justice Melissa Perry and streamed live on the court’s YouTube channel, will determine if sex is regarded under the Sex Discrimination Act as binary and immutable, as argued by Ms Grover, or non-binary and change­able, as claimed by Ms Tickle.

Ms Tickle’s position has been supported in court by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody, under the auspices of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and by LGBTIQ+ group Equality Australia.

Ms Grover’s crowd-funded case has been backed by women’s groups and by gay and lesbian groups who argue that a man who identifies as a woman and calls himself a lesbian is simply a heterosexual man who has no place at a lesbian event.

So high are the stakes that, whichever way the judges decide, the case is all but certain to be ­appealed to the High Court.

The case has attracted global attention, with author and women’s rights crusader JK Rowling expressing support for Ms Grover in a post on social media platform X.

Source: Subscribe to The Australian | Newspaper home delivery, website, iPad, iPhone & Android apps

Sophie Quinn’s family speaks out as alleged killer found dead | Women’s Agenda

The family of Sophie Quinn have spoken publicly after the body of her alleged murderer, Julian Ingram, was discovered by police on Monday afternoon next to an abandoned ute 50km north-west of Lake Cargelligo in NSW.

Since January, police had been searching for the gunman believed to have killed Sophie, her friend John Harris, and her aunt Nerida Quinn, in Lake Cargelligo, 570 kilometres northwest of Sydney. 

At the time of her death, Sophie was 7-months pregnant.

Quinn, 25, and Harris, 32, were shot and killed in the afternoon of January 22 when bullets were fired into a dark hatchback on Bokhara St in Lake Cargelligo. Shortly after, Quinn’s aunt, Nerida, 50, was shot and killed at a home in a nearby street. 

Her son’s teenage friend, Kaleb Macqueen was shot in the back of the head, his hand, shoulder and leg, but survived with serious injuries. At the time of the shootings, Ingram was on bail for alleged domestic violence offences against Quinn and is believed to have carried out the murders just hours after reporting to a local police station as part of his bail conditions.

Local police had granted Ingram bail last November after his alleged assault around the time he separated from Quinn.

Local resident Dwayne Kirby, who saw Quinn and Harris get shot, questioned why he had been granted bail.

“We’re glad he’s been found, but he should still be alive, so the family can get justice,” he said. “I’m hoping in some way they can.”

So far this year in Australia, 23 women and 8 children have been killed in incidents of domestic violence, according to The RED HEART Movement, the organisation that tracks every known Australian woman and child killed as a result of murder, manslaughter or neglect.

In 2025, 79 women were killed in incidents of domestic violence.

Source: Sophie Quinn’s family speaks out as alleged killer found dead

Update on Giggle v Tickle

Judgment Update
The Full Federal Court has advised that judgment in Giggle v Tickle will be delivered on Friday, 15 May 2026 at 2:00pm AEST.

The judgment will be livestreamed on the Australian Federal Court YouTube channel.

Watch the Livestream

International Times:
🇬🇧 UK (BST):15 May at 5:00 AM
🇺🇸 USA East (EDT):15 May at 12:00 AM (midnight)
🇺🇸 USA West (PDT):14 May at 9:00 PM

Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into surrogacy: Three women changed my mind on surrogacy | SMH | Jenna Price

This moment is a tipping point for surrogacy in Australia. Do we stay with the model of what we call “altruistic surrogacy”, doing it for love, kindness or charity? Or do we go with “compensated surrogacy”, a coded word for payment for the surrogate mother that goes beyond the bare expenses? It’s used instead of the more honest “commercial surrogacy” because that seems too much like we are buying and selling babies.

The ALRC was asked to inquire into surrogacy laws in Australia under the chairmanship of Justice Mordy Bromberg. Its report to federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland will be delivered in a few weeks. Its advisory committee, now disbanded, looks like fan fiction for the commercial surrogacy lobby, with some prominent fertility lawyers among its cast.

Believe me, I understand the nearly overwhelming desire to have a baby. When I met my husband, I wanted six. Fortunately, sense, my lovely spouse and exhaustion after three kids prevailed. He was also the one who had the good sense to steer me away from becoming a surrogate for my sister. He was right. I might have handed the kid over, but I would never have been able to relinquish my motherhood. My sister never had kids. She died. Our relationship never recovered.

But I remained a firm supporter of surrogacy for decades, for other people, if not for me. Earlier this year, I spoke to three women who changed my mind. Australia finally apologised for the pain of forced adoptions, but these women explained how much surrogacy has in common with that barbaric practice.

Patricia Harper, one of the early founders of the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children, discovered the ALRC inquiry had no room for women affected by adoption. She had held tight to her daughter Ruth in 1968, when friends, families, strangers, all tried to force Patricia’s hand because she had no husband. Lily Clifford, one of the founders of the Association of Relinquishing Mothers, had her son removed in 1972 because she was not married to the baby’s father. And I spoke to Sarah Dingle, author of Brave New Humans, who discovered in her 20s that she was donor-conceived with no way of discovering who her father was. She argues that when children are a result of surrogacy, there are many ways they may be sold, isolated from their families and/or lied to.

Not one of these women was called to take part in consultations with the surrogacy inquiry. Not one. Despite their intense understanding of the pain of relinquishment, the pain of distance.

Commercial surrogacy is banned in this country. And, for those who don’t know, the surrogacy laws in NSW, Queensland and the ACT also make it a criminal offence for their residents to travel overseas and engage in commercial surrogacy. As I understand, there has never been a prosecution for accessing commercial surrogacy.

As with any commercial transaction, lots can go very wrong. If the ALRC report goes in favour of compensated surrogacy, the name change won’t make it any safer. And it won’t protect the babies, the children or the adults.

Let’s honour Sonia Allan, eminent legal academic in surrogacy law, who died in March. Her last letter to Justice Bromberg asked the inquiry to consider the interests of the children. They are the ones who suffer. We can’t ban surrogacy. But please, please, let’s protect children from being just another transaction in our commodified lives.

Source: Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into surrogacy: Three women changed my mind on surrogacy

Sydney Uni revokes invitation for former Knox teacher William Gulson | SMH

A former Knox Grammar teacher has avoided jail for grooming a child, with a judge ruling it could still have caused harm despite the teenager acting as a vigilante in an attempt to “catch pedos”.

The 28-year-old was sentenced to a three-year community correction order – essentially a good behaviour bond – at Downing Centre Local Court on Friday for procuring whom he thought was a 15-year-old child for sex.

He was also placed on the NSW Child Protection Register.

The former teacher unsuccessfully fought to have no criminal conviction recorded so that he could return to teaching, while the court heard his resume falsely claimed he was still a teacher.

The resume was tendered alongside a written reference that said Gulson had received the University of Sydney’s John Bell and Joyce Williams Prize in Shakespeare Studies.

In response to questions about the circumstances surrounding Gulson’s invitation to the ceremony, given his serious offending, a University of Sydney spokesperson confirmed the invite had been scrapped on Thursday afternoon.

Gulson came undone when the student told friends about the chats and the matter was reported to police. The teacher was recognisable in photos found on a device.

On Thursday, Chan grilled Gulson’s treating psychologist Carl Hattingh on his opinion that his client did not have a sexual interest in children, given he searched more than 100 terms relating to “gay child porn”, child abuse and similar phrases.

Chan, however, put the re-offending risk at above average.

“There is absolutely no sign of remorse or contrition or acknowledgement of harm whatsoever expressed by the offender,” Chan said.

“In no sense… could a teacher of a 15-year-old child seeking to procure a 15-year-old child for unlawful sexual activity be described as trivial offending”.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Gulson attended Knox and graduated in 2014.

In 2023, he received a “Living Our Values” award from the Knox Grammar School Council.

Source: Sydney Uni revokes invitation for former Knox teacher William Gulson

Sydney childcare centres caught employing banned workers in national safety blitz | SMH

Two Sydney childcare centres were caught this week employing workers who have been banned from working with children, as regulators crack down on the sector.

New rules requiring early learning services to undertake strict screening checks of workers, entering their details in a new national register, are now in place as the NSW government vows to build a system where child safety and quality are non-negotiable.

The crackdown comes after a series of high-profile incidents at childcare centres have put safety in the spotlight and forced governments to intervene.

Among the most notorious cases was one of Australia’s worst childcare paedophiles, Ashley Paul Griffith, who escaped detection for years despite multiple incidents and complaints, due to childcare centres not keeping records for why they no longer employed him, and failures to seek referee reports from previous places of work.

Griffith has pleaded guilty to more than 300 offences in Australia and abroad, including in early learning settings. He is known to have worked across multiple services and across states, remaining undetected for some years.

During a compliance blitz this week, the NSW Early Learning Commission and the Victorian Early Childhood Regulatory Authority visited more than 500 centres.

Officers checked whether approved providers had implemented the mandatory National Early Childhood Worker Register, a platform developed to ensure greater visibility of people working in the sector.

During the blitz, one south-western Sydney provider was fined $20,000 for hiring someone who had been prohibited from working with children after they used “inappropriate discipline” on a child.

[Ed: Man or woman? Carefully worded. I just hope hapless women in the sector aren’t now paying for the sins of depraved males.]

Source: Sydney childcare centres caught employing banned workers in national safety blitz

Should surrogates be paid for carrying other people’s babies? And how much would be enough? | The Conversation

The Australian Law Reform Commission is currently reviewing Australia’s surrogacy laws to ensure they’re fit for purpose and reflect the population’s current views.

One aspect being considered is whether surrogates should be allowed to receive financial payments for gestating a fetus on behalf of another person or couple.

The commission’s final report is expected in July.

Currently, only “altruistic” surrogacy arrangements are permitted. This means the surrogate volunteers to carry the pregnancy and receives no financial incentive or compensation for the time or risk involved.

“Commercial” surrogacy arrangements are available in some countries around the world, meaning surrogates are able to contract their gestational services for a fee. Examples include Georgia, Ukraine and some states in the United States.

One study of ten surrogacy agencies in the US found significant variation in the amount commercial surrogates were paid. They report most “compensation packages” were listed in the range US$30,000–70,000, but it was not always clear what the breakdown for these packages was.

Another study of 30 specific contracts cited rates of US$18,000–$50,000, with an average payment of US$23,000.

In India, commercial surrogacy arrangements involving foreign nationals were banned in 2015. This ban was then extended to everyone by 2022

Before this, the average payment reported for commercial surrogates was US$5,000.

Thailand followed a similar pattern. Once a major hub for international commercial surrogacy, it also banned the practice in 2015.

The much publicised case of “baby Gammy” a child born through commercial surrogacy in Thailand, is often cited as the catalyst for the changes in surrogacy law in Thailand and beyond.

Baby Gammy was the genetic child of an Australian commissioning couple. But he was born with Down syndrome and a congenital heart condition and was not brought back to Australia with his twin sister.

This sparked international concern over the ethical and legal obligations to children and surrogates involved in transnational surrogacy arrangements. [Ed: Not to mention that the commissioning father was a convicted pedophile! Why is this not mentioned?]

Another potential type of paid surrogacy arrangement Australia might consider is “compensated”, rather than “commercial” surrogacy.

In a compensated model, surrogates would be paid a standardised rate for each month of completed gestation, in addition to having their expenses reimbursed. The regulation of the standard fee is often considered the key difference to the commercial model, with no bidding or broker competition allowed.

Israel’s unique state-controlled surrogacy payment model is arguably one example of this type of arrangement. While still typically referred to as “altruistic” rather than “commercial”, this model does allow strictly regulated payments to compensate a surrogate’s “time and suffering”, rather than just permitting reimbursement of direct expenses.

How could a fair price be calculated?

[Ed: There is no fair price for a human life.]

One way to determine a fair price for compensated surrogacy in Australia would be to make the rate similar to what surrogates are paid for commercial surrogacy in other high income countries, such as the US.

Multiple submissions to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of surrogacy laws suggested A$1,000–$2,000 per month would be reasonable, based on the results of these kinds of discussions. This is 20–50% of minimum wage.

Another method would be just to use minimum wage as the rate, equating to just over A$4,000 a month.

Also, this would be one occupation where it is not only possible but essential that you sleep on the job.

Would a reduced rate be payable if the surrogate was otherwise employed during the same “work hours”? Or would a surrogacy payment be better classified as an additional loading on top of their regular salary? How would surrogacy as a “second job” be taxed?

The review of Australia’s surrogacy laws is trying to ensure couples aren’t forced to travel overseas to have a family. If the commission recommends adding compensated surrogacy as an option in Australia, and the government accepts this recommendation, more debates are likely to follow.

[Ed: No one is forced to go overseas because having children is not compulsory. Suggesting people should be able to buy a baby for sums they would pay for a car is unethical in the extreme. Women and children are not for sale.]

Source: Should surrogates be paid for carrying other people’s babies? And how much would be enough?