Click the case name for better results:

Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others: Admn 18 Apr 2002

The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act. Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any interference with a fertilised egg, if it leads to the loss of the egg, involves the … Continue reading Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others: Admn 18 Apr 2002

Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others: CA 25 Jun 2004

The applicant challenged the decision of the court that the sperm donor who had fertilised her eggs to create embryos stored by the respondent IVF clinic, could withdraw his consent to their continued storage or use. Held: The judge worked within a strict statutory framework. His task was to calculate the application of that law, … Continue reading Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others: CA 25 Jun 2004

Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Another: SC 17 Dec 2014

Roman Catholic Midwives, working as Labour Ward Co-ordinators had objected to being involved in an administrative capacity in abortions being conducted by the appellants. The Outer House had said they were not entitled to opt out, but the Inner House had declared that ‘the petitioners’ entitlement to conscientious objection to participation in treatment for termination … Continue reading Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Another: SC 17 Dec 2014

Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust: CA 4 Feb 2009

The defendant hospital had custody of sperm samples given by the claimants in the course of fertility treatment. The samples were effectively destroyed when the fridge malfunctioned. Each claimant was undergoing chemotherapy which would prevent them providing future samples. They appealed a finding that they they had no losses, based on the suggestion that the … Continue reading Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust: CA 4 Feb 2009

Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell: HL 17 May 1990

The House sought to reconcile section 31 of the 1981 Act, with RSC Order 53 r4 as to the time within which judicial review proceedings must be brought. Held: Whenever there was a failure to act promptly or within three months there was ‘undue delay’ within the meaning of section 31(6). Lord Goff said: ‘as … Continue reading Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell: HL 17 May 1990

In the matter of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ; A and Others: FD 11 Sep 2015

The court was asked: ‘who, in law, is or are the parent(s) of a child born as a result of treatment carried out under this legislation’ Held: The court pointed again to the failures to keep proper records within several fertility clinics. However: ‘Given the statutory framework, what it provides and, equally significant, what it … Continue reading In the matter of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ; A and Others: FD 11 Sep 2015

In re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy): FD 9 Dec 2008

The court considered the approval required for an order under the 2002 Act. Held: Welfare considerations were important but not paramount: ‘Given the permanent nature of the order under s.30, it seems reasonable that the court should adopt the ‘lifelong’ perspective of welfare in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 rather than the ‘minority’ perspective … Continue reading In re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy): FD 9 Dec 2008

AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B: QBD 26 Feb 2003

An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .

AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A, A, YA and, ZA (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B: QBD 26 Feb 2003

References: [2003] EWHC 259 (QB), Gazette 01-May-2003, [2003] 1 FLR 1091 Links: Bailii Coram: The President An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration. Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents had been … Continue reading AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A, A, YA and, ZA (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B: QBD 26 Feb 2003

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Evans v United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Mar 2006

The claimant had entered into fertilisation treatment with her boyfriend. They both signed an agreement under which the fertilised sperm were only later to be implanted with the agreement of both. The couple separated, and the potential father withdrew his consent to the treatment, and the woman was refused implantation. She complained of interference with … Continue reading Evans v United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Mar 2006

Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance): HL 13 Mar 2003

Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act. Held: The challenge failed. The court was to give effect to the intentions of … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance): HL 13 Mar 2003

British Pregnancy Advisory Service v Secretary of State for Health: Admn 14 Feb 2011

The claimant sought a declaration that the administration of an abortifacient drug was not ‘any treatment for the termination of pregnancy’ for the purposes of section 1 of the 1967 Act, allowing the piloting and possible adoption of early medical abortions in part self-administered. Held: The request was refused. Parliament had passed the Act aware … Continue reading British Pregnancy Advisory Service v Secretary of State for Health: Admn 14 Feb 2011

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2003); 1 Apr 2004

References: Unreported, 1 April 2004 Coram: Judge LJ, Elias, Stanley Burnton JJ Ratio:The license holder of a fertility clinic was accused of keeping an embryo otherwise than in pursuance of the licence. The clinic had employed a respected consultant who had carried out the task, but had done so unlawfully. Held: The Act made a … Continue reading Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2003); 1 Apr 2004

X v Y v St Bartholomew’s Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine (Assisted Reproduction: Parent): FC 13 Feb 2015

The required Form PP was not on the clinic’s file. Theis J set out four issues which accordingly arose: (1) Did X sign the Form PP so that it complied with section 37(1) of the 2008 Act? (2) If X did, was the Form PP subsequently mislaid by the clinic? (3) Was the treatment ‘provided … Continue reading X v Y v St Bartholomew’s Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine (Assisted Reproduction: Parent): FC 13 Feb 2015

X v Y v St Bartholomew’s Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine (Assisted Reproduction: Parent); FC 13 Feb 2015

References: [2015] EWFC 13 Links: Bailii Coram: Theis J Ratio The required Form PP was not on the clinic’s file. Theis J set out four issues which accordingly arose: (1) Did X sign the Form PP so that it complied with section 37(1) of the 2008 Act? (2) If X did, was the Form PP … Continue reading X v Y v St Bartholomew’s Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine (Assisted Reproduction: Parent); FC 13 Feb 2015