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
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 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 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
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
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 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
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 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 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 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
‘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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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: [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
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
