Click the case name for better results:

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 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

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

Regina (on the Application of Bruno Quintavalle on Behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) v Secretary of State for Health: Admn 15 Nov 2001

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

Mrs U v Centre for Reproductive Medicine: CA 2002

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

Regina (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health: CA 18 Jan 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

In re R (Parental responsibility: IVF baby): CA 19 Feb 2003

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

B and D v R: FD 22 Feb 2002

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

U v W (Attorney-General Intervening): FD 4 Mar 1997

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

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

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

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

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

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