The Scottish Government has failed to delay its judicial review of Westminster’s decision to block its gender recognition reforms.

Humza Yousaf’s government has legally challenged the decision of Scottish Secretary Alister Jack to issue a section 35 order to prevent the gender recognition reforms becoming law.

The Scottish Government’s judicial review is set to be held at the Court of Session in Edinburgh next month.

But lawyers acting on behalf of the Scottish Government asked for the hearing to be delayed until an appeal in a separate court case relating to the definition of a woman is heard.

But Lady Haldane rejected the Scottish Government's request, agreeing with the UK Government’s legal team that “great pains” had been taken to fix the timetable and the request had come “too late”.

Read more: Misinformation over gender recognition plans used to 'whip up moral panic'

At the hearing on Friday at the Court of Session, Paul Reid, acting on behalf of the Scottish Government, told Lady Haldane that a delay was needed due to an appeal by campaign group For Women Scotland, which opposes the gender recognition reforms.

The appeal by For Women Scotland is due to take place in October at the Inner House of the Court of Session.

The appeal relates to the definition of a woman in the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act, with Mr Reid claiming that the appeal could impact the Scottish Government’s judicial review.

Mr Reid said: The Lord Advocate’s position is that the present hearing should be discharged and a new date be arranged.

“To not do so would create the material risk of complication in case of the outcome of the case in the Inner House.”

Read more: GRR Scotland: Gender reform legal fight bill 'could be £500,000'

But David Johnson KC, acting on behalf of the UK Government, argued the cases were separate legal issued and called for the delay to be rejected.

He said: “Great pains were taken to fix dates which suited the parties. This motion comes too late.

“My motion is for you to refuse this motion.”

Lady Haldane backed the UK Government’s argument and rejected the request to delay the judicial review.

She said: “I do not accept that the issues in the For Women Scotland case and the issues in this motion brought by the petitioners are the same.

"In the event that For Women Scotland is successful in the Inner House, further submissions on the case can be made for whatever they see is appropriate."

Under the reforms, agreed overwhelmingly by MSPs at Holyrood, the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis would be removed from the process to obtain a gender recognition certificate – a document needed for some administrative reasons.

Read more: Analysis: Scottish Government lawyers will have a field day over UK's GRR case

The age limit would also be lowered from 18 to 16 years old as part of the move to a system of self-identification.

In January, Mr Jack said the move to invoke a section 35 order was needed because the Scottish legislation – which would speed up and simplify the process for trans people to obtain a gender recognition certificate – would have an “adverse impact” on the operation of equalities legislation in Britain.

As such, he insisted that blocking the Bill is the “necessary and correct course of action”.

The UK Government had urged Scottish ministers to bring forward amendments to the legislation, with Mr Jack saying this could provide a “constructive way forward” in the latest stand-off between the two governments.

But Deputy First Minister Shona Robison, who was responsible for the legislation being approved by Holyrood, said UK ministers had not asked for any changes when the Bill was being considered by MSPs and has warned the UK Government has not used a section 35 order legitimately.

A UK Government spokesperson said: “The UK Government stands ready to robustly defend our position at the hearing in September, so we welcome today’s decision from the court.

“The Secretary of State for Scotland made a section 35 order to prevent the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from becoming law because it would have an adverse effect on reserved matters, including on the operation of the law as it applies to Great Britain-wide equalities protections.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “It would not be appropriate to comment on live legal proceedings.”