The long-running legal dispute between Giggle for Girls founder Sall Grover and Roxanne Tickle has now reached its conclusion, with the High Court of Australia refusing special leave to appeal the Full Court of the Federal Court’s May 2026 decision.
On 10 September 2026, the High Court refused the application, with costs. The refusal means the Full Court’s judgement remains the final judicial determination in the litigation.
How the case began
The dispute arose from Tickle’s use of the Giggle for Girls application, which was designed as a women-only social networking platform. Tickle was initially granted access to the application but later had access restricted.
On 5 December 2021, Tickle lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Giggle for Girls and Sall Grover declined to participate in the Commission’s conciliation process. On 5 April 2022, the complaint was terminated because the Commission considered there was no reasonable prospect of the matter being settled by conciliation. The termination enabled Tickle to commence proceedings in the Federal Court.
Proceedings were commenced in the Federal Court in December 2022. The case concerned the application of the Sex Discrimination Act to the restriction of access to the Giggle platform. The Federal Court’s public case file records the subsequent judgments and orders.
The first Federal Court decision
On 23 August 2024, Justice Bromwich found that Giggle for Girls had engaged in unlawful indirect discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
The Court found that the relevant condition imposed on access to the application had disadvantaged Tickle and that the respondents had not established that the condition was reasonable in the circumstances.
A declaration of contravention was subsequently made on 5 September 2024.
The respondents appealed the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court.
The Full Court appeal
On 15 May 2026, the Full Court of the Federal Court — Justices Perry, Abraham and Kennett — delivered its judgement in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle
The Full Court dismissed the appeal brought by Giggle for Girls and Sall Grover. It also allowed Tickle’s cross-appeal.
Importantly, the Full Court did not simply leave the original finding unchanged. It replaced the finding of indirect discrimination with a finding of direct discrimination under s 5B(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act.
The Court awarded $20,000 in damages, comprising $12,000 in general damages and $8,000 in aggravated damages.
The appeal raised questions concerning the interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act, including the operation of provisions dealing with gender identity and the statutory defence relating to special measures.
Grover and Giggle for Girls subsequently sought to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
The High Court refuses special leave
The High Court was not asked to hear the substantive appeal at this stage. The application before it was whether special leave should be granted to allow the proposed appeal to proceed.
On 10 September 2026, the High Court refused special leave.
Its reasons were concise:
“There is no reason to doubt the Full Court’s construction of s. 7D (1) and (2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).”
The Court continued that an appeal dependent upon demonstrating an error in the Full Court’s construction of those provisions had insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.
The High Court therefore did not conduct a new trial or issue a substantive judgement reconsidering all of the questions raised throughout the litigation. Its refusal of special leave leaves the Full Court’s May 2026 decision standing.
What the decision means
The immediate legal significance is straightforward: the judicial proceedings in Giggle v Tickle are now at an end.
The Full Court’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act remains the final judicial determination in this particular case.
It is important, however, to distinguish what the courts decided in this litigation from broader questions that were not determined.
The High Court did not issue a general ruling resolving every question about sex, gender identity or the meaning of biological sex in Australian law. Nor did it hear and determine the proposed appeal on its merits. It refused special leave because it found there was no reason to doubt the Full Court’s construction of the relevant provisions and that an appeal based on demonstrating an error in that construction did not have sufficient prospects of success.
The result is therefore best understood in the context of the legislation as it currently stands.
The question now belongs to Parliament
The courts interpret and apply legislation enacted by Parliament. Parliament remains responsible for determining whether legislation is appropriate, whether it is achieving its intended purpose and whether it should be amended.
The High Court’s refusal of special leave has closed the judicial avenue in this case. It does not prevent Parliament from considering whether the current legislative framework is appropriate or whether changes are required.
This is an important distinction.
The judicial process in this particular matter has now ended, with the Full Court’s interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act remaining in place. If Parliament considers that the legislation does not adequately protect sex-based rights, or that its provisions require clarification or amendment, that is a question for Parliament to address.
The legal dispute may therefore be over, but the broader legislative question remains open:
Is the current law working as Parliament intended, and if not, should Parliament change it?