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
The parties had lived together as a married couple. They had had a child together by artificial insemination. It was then revealed that Mr J was a woman. The parties split up, and Mr J applied for an order for contact with the child. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The HFEA Act required that to … Continue reading J v C and E (a Child) (Void Marriage: Status of Children): CA 15 May 2006
The claimants wished to challenge licensing decisions made by the respondent, and for a protective costs order. Judges: Dobbs J Citations: [2008] EWHC 3395 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 16 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell … Continue reading Quintavalle and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Admn 9 Dec 2008
The claimant had sought fertility treatment with her husband. Now, after his death, she sought an order to declare lawful the continued use of the stored gametes. Held: The request failed. Without explicit consent, the court had no power to make an order anticipating the decision of the Authority respondent. Any rights of the claimant … Continue reading L v the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: FD 3 Oct 2008
‘The issue is whether the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFEA) has the power to permit tissue-typing in conjunction with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or PGD. This technique involves three stages: (1) an in vitro embryo is permitted to develop to the 6-8 cell stage which occurs three days after fertilisation; (2) one or two cells are … Continue reading Quintavalle, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Admn 20 Dec 2002
A lesbian couple had split up and disputed the care of the children. An order had been made but then, in breach of that order, one removed the children overnight to Cornwall. An argument was made that the court had failed to give proper weight to the considerations from the 1989 Act and had ignored … Continue reading CG v CW and Another (Children): CA 6 Apr 2006
Citations: [2005] EWHC 1092 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 1990 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health, Human Rights Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226996
The parents of a boy suffering a serious genetic disorder sought IVF treament in which any embryo would be tested for its pre-implantation genetic status. Only an embryo capable of producing the stem cells necessary to cure the boy would be implanted. The claimant said that the Authority had no power to license such a … Continue reading Quintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: HL 28 Apr 2005
A licence was sought so that a couple could have a child who would be tissue typed to establish his suitability to provide an umbilical cord after his birth to help treat his future brother. A licence had been granted subject to conditions, and the applicant now challenged the right of the Authority to grant … Continue reading Quintavalle, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: CA 16 May 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 had been given, and the concept under the Act of ‘treatment together’. Any interference with the right to … Continue reading 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
The applicant sought a judicial review of the respondent’s issue of a licence for genetic screening. They claimed this was outside the statutory powers of the respondent. Held: The Act specifically allowed the Authority to issue licences which were for activities taking place in the course of treatment. The present licence would allow tissue typing, … Continue reading Regina (Quintaville) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: QBD 20 Dec 2002
The applicant was undergoing fertility treatment. She wanted to have more than three eggs implanted, but permission for this was refused by the Authority. She sought to challenge that by way of judicial review. Held: Judicial review was not the right way to challenge a scientific view. The authority is a public one, and its … Continue reading Regina (Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre) v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: CA 31 Jan 2002
Sperm which had been taken from a dying and unconscious man may not be used for the later insemination of his surviving wife. The Act required his written consent. Held: Community Law does not assist the Applicant. The question had been considered in Parliament, and allowing for the limitations on the powers of courts exercising … Continue reading Regina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte DB: Admn 17 Oct 1996
The parties were unmarried but entered into IVF treatment together. They separated, but the mother continued with treatment, not telling the IVF center of the breakdown of the first relationship, and nor of her new relationship until after the successful insemination. The father sought a declaration of paternity. Held: The court had jurisdiction under the … Continue reading B and D v R: FD 22 Feb 2002
The claimants and their former partners had undergone fertility treatment resulting in frozen embryos being kept pending possible implantation. The relationship had in each case failed, and the potential fathers had refused consent, but the claimants sought to be allowed to have the eggs implanted. Held: Permission was refused. The father’s consent was required to … Continue reading Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others; Hadley v Midland Fertility Services Ltd and Others: FD 1 Oct 2003
‘Mrs W seeks a Declaration that it is lawful for the sperm of her husband Warren Brewer who died on 7 February 2012 to be stored beyond 18 April 2015 and for a period of up to 55 years until 18 April 2060 so that it can be used by her for the purposes of … Continue reading Warren v Care Fertility (Northampton) Ltd and Another: FD 6 Mar 2014
The mother had entered into a surrogacy arrangement to be inseminated, and give birth to the child, but then declined to transfer the child. The intended parents now sought a residence order. Payments had been made toward expenses, but no written agreement had been entered into. Held: None of the three principals had been frank … Continue reading CW v NT and Another: FD 21 Jan 2011
Appeal against refusal to allow export of eggs of their late daughter to the USA. Munby P FD, Arden, Burnett LJJ [2016] EWCA Civ 611 Bailii Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 England and Wales Health Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566235
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The claimant, father of a child born by artificial insemination from a frozen embryo, alleged that the signature on the form of consent had been forged. Judges: Jay J Citations: [2017] EWHC 2438 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 640 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Torts – Other, Health … Continue reading ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd: QBD 6 Oct 2017
The Applicant AB, a lesbian woman aged 37, applied for contact to twin boys, E and F, aged 3. In making that application, she described herself as the boys’ ‘parent’; she ws so defined on the boys’ birth certificates. For the first 17 months of their lives, she fulfilled a parental role, as an integral … Continue reading AB v CD: FD 24 May 2013
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 clear distinction between the person responsible for keeping the embryos and the … Continue reading Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2003): 1 Apr 2004
The defendant sought to use the sperm of her deceased husband for her insemination. The deceased had apparently withdrawn his consent to the use of his sperm posthumously. His widow claimed that he had been influenced to change the form, by an implied threat that the treatment would not continue. Held: the case of re … Continue reading The Centre for Reproductive Medicine v U: FD 24 Jan 2002
The parents had received IVF treatment together, but had separated before the child was born. The mother resisted an application by the father for a declaration of paternity. Held: The father’s appeal failed. The Act made statutory provision as to the parentage of a child born through IVF. The mere participation of the father and … Continue reading In Re R (Parental responsibility: IVF baby); D (A Child), Re: HL 12 May 2005
The claimant appealed a refusal to grant an order preventing the destruction of the sperm of her late husband held by the respondent fertility clinic. The clinic had persuaded her husband to sign a form of consent for this purpose. The claimant said that the form had been obtained by undue influence, believing that the … Continue reading U v Centre for Reproductive Medicine: CA 24 Apr 2002
Where procedures produced a clone of a human cell or embryo, that was not an embryo within and subject to regulation under the Act, since there had been no process of fertilisation, which is a pre-requisite under the Act. A cloned cell could not be a ’embryo where fertilisation is complete.’ Judges: Mr Justice Crane … Continue reading Regina (on the Application of Bruno Quintavalle on Behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) v Secretary of State for Health: Admn 15 Nov 2001
The 1990 Act lays great emphasis upon consent. Scientific techniques developed since the first IVF baby open up the possibility of creating human life in quite new ways bringing huge practical and ethical difficulties. These have to be balanced against the strength and depth of the feelings of people who desperately long for the children … Continue reading Mrs U v Centre for Reproductive Medicine: CA 2002
A cloned cell, a cell produced by cell nuclear replacement came within the definition of embryo under the Act. The Act required that fertilisation was complete. Held: The act could be applied in a purposive way. The legislative policy was that it was essential to bring the creation and use of embryos under strict regulatory … Continue reading Regina (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health: CA 18 Jan 2002
The mother and father of the child were not married, but had consented to the terms of their infertility treatment. The father donated his sperm, but the mother was only inseminated after they had separated. The mother appealed a declaration of paternity. Held: The Act clearly provided that the embryo was created at the time … Continue reading In re R (Parental responsibility: IVF baby): CA 19 Feb 2003
A mother applied for financial provision for her twin children under 1989 Act Sch 1. The father asked whether he was their parent within the Schedule. They had been born by artificial insemination. He accepted that he was the donor of the sperm and the biological father, but said that whilst he willingly donated the … Continue reading Re B (Parentage): FD 1996
The restriction on the freedom to provide human fertility treatment to licensees of the Authority was not a breach of the EU treaty. There is a particular need for certainty in provisions affecting the status of a child. There is a mental element inherent in the notion of ‘treatment together’ and if the respondent had … Continue reading U v W (Attorney-General Intervening): FD 4 Mar 1997
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
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
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
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
The child had been born in Illinois as a result of a commercial surrogacy arrangement which would have been unlawful here. The parents applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. Held: The order was made, but in doing so he court had to give retrospective approval to the payments. Hedley J emphasised that … Continue reading In re L (A Minor) (Commercial Surrogacy): FD 8 Dec 2010
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
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
