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
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
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
