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 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 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 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 The deceased had apparently withdrawn his consent to the use of his sperm posthumously.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 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
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
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
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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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: 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
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
