Full Federal Court tells Giggle app: excluding trans women is discrimination

Sall Grover's facial-recognition app lost its appeal and now owes Roxanne Tickle $20,000 plus costs for what three judges called direct discrimination.

Told by Claire Lawson · 30 September 2026

The Full Federal Court has told Sall Grover and her women-only app exactly what the law means by discrimination, and it's going to cost her.

On 15 May 2026, three judges in Sydney dismissed an appeal by Grover and her app Giggle for Girls, confirming that Roxanne Tickle — a trans woman — was discriminated against when she was excluded from the platform for being trans. The Court found Ms Tickle was directly discriminated against on two grounds because of her gender identity, increased damages to $20,000, and ordered Grover and Giggle to pay Ms Tickle's legal costs up to $100,000.

Here's what the judgment actually says, and it's worth quoting in full because this is the line doing the work:

"Under the Act, the concept of womanhood is not to be understood by reference to any narrow or rigid conception of femaleness."

That's the majority judgment. What it does to a specific person on a specific afternoon is this: Roxanne Tickle uploaded a photo to an app marketed as a digital safe space for women. Giggle's facial-recognition software decided she didn't look like a cisgendered female. Sall Grover then manually reviewed the image, saw that Ms Tickle presented as female, knew through their communications that she identified as a trans woman — and removed her anyway, based on what Grover perceived as the physical characteristics of a cisgender man.

The Court called that direct discrimination. Not indirect. Not a reasonable condition. Direct.

Justice Perry found that knowledge of a person being transgender is not a necessary element in establishing direct discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act — because requiring that knowledge would let someone discriminate simply by asserting they didn't know. The judgment also establishes that the relevant comparison for a trans woman in a discrimination claim is to a cisgender woman in the same circumstances, not to a cisgender man. Comparing a trans woman to a cisgender man, the Court said, "would in effect re-enact that discrimination and invalidate the gender identity and/or gender presentation of a transgender woman."

Then there's the aggravating conduct. Justices Abraham and Kennett found that Grover ran a public campaign against Ms Tickle outside the initial matter — public commentary on the proceedings that the Court accepted caused Ms Tickle additional harm. That's what pushed damages from the original figure to $20,000.

Equality Australia's Legal Director Heather Corkhill told the press the ruling affirms that all women deserve to live free from discrimination, without being judged on appearance, presentation or perceptions. She also said that if Grover's appeal had succeeded, the consequences would have reached far beyond trans communities, weakening protections for many Australians covered by discrimination law.

The case had multiple interveners: the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, the Lesbian Action Group, and Equality Australia itself. The decision lands in a broader context — the UK Supreme Court found in April 2025 that legal definitions of "man," "woman" and "sex" under the Equality Act 2010 are based on biological sex, and that the definition of "woman" does not include a trans woman. Closer to home, Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan have suggested that if successful at the next election, the Coalition will introduce legislation to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to introduce a definition of "biological sex."

The Sex Discrimination Act currently does not define "man" or "woman." The Full Federal Court has now said what it does protect: trans Australians are entitled to the same legal protections, and the same right to live safely and with dignity, as everyone else.

Which means this: if you're a trans woman trying to join a social app, a gym, a book club, a professional network — anything covered by the Act — the law now says you can't be excluded because someone decided your face doesn't pass their test. The gap between what Sall Grover thought the law allowed and what three Federal Court judges just told her it means is $120,000 wide, and it's not closing.