Click the case name for better results:

P and Others (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) (No 2): FD 13 Oct 2017

Following the identification of various errors in the paperwork at a fertility treatment centre, the court had ordered an audit. That audit had taken place and a further few errors identified. However after further concerns, the HFEA had re-audited the centre’s files, with the results suggesting that the first audit had been inadequate. Complaints were … Continue reading P and Others (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) (No 2): FD 13 Oct 2017

Case O (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008): FD 13 Sep 2016

The court considered another case where documentation forming an integral part of the process of settling the parentage of a child born through procedures regulated by the Acts and which now required a formal order confirming parentage. Sir James Munby [2016] EWHC 2273 (Fam) Bailii Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, Human Fertilisation and Embryology … Continue reading Case O (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008): FD 13 Sep 2016

G, Re (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008): FD 6 Apr 2016

The applicant sought a declaration of parenthood. She and her same sex partner had been asked to signthe wrong forms when undergoing fertility treatment. Held: The court was able to rely upon the euitable doctrine of recification were there had, as here, been a clear mistake. In this cas a wholesale transposition of the content … Continue reading G, Re (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008): FD 6 Apr 2016

In the matter of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ; A and Others: FD 11 Sep 2015

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

Re I (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008): FD 12 Apr 2016

The court considered questions arising on applications for use of the equitable doctrine of rectification in cases of mistake at IVF Clinics. Sir James Munby [2016] EWHC 791 (Fam), [2016] Fam Law 678, [2017] 1 FLR 998 Bailii, Judiciary Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 England and Wales Health Professions, Children, Equity Leading Case Updated: … Continue reading Re I (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008): FD 12 Apr 2016

Quintavalle and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Admn 9 Dec 2008

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

L v the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: FD 3 Oct 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

Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 17 Jun 2003

The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a ‘possession’ within the Convention or the discrimination was arbitrary so as to breach the applicants human rights. Held: … Continue reading Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 17 Jun 2003

Regina (Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre) v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: CA 31 Jan 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

Kroon And Others v The Netherlands: ECHR 27 Oct 1994

Neither marriage nor living together were necessarily a requirement for establishing family ties, exceptionally other factors may . . serve to demonstrate that a relationship has sufficient constancy to create de facto ‘family ties’. The relationship between a man and a woman amounted to family life, even though they chose neither to marry nor to … Continue reading Kroon And Others v The Netherlands: ECHR 27 Oct 1994

Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jorg Schindler: ECJ 24 Mar 1994

Europa The importation of lottery advertisements and tickets into a Member State with a view to the participation by residents of that State in a lottery conducted in another Member State relates to a ‘service’ within the meaning of Article 60 of the Treaty and accordingly falls within the scope of Article 59 of the … Continue reading Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jorg Schindler: ECJ 24 Mar 1994

D and L (Minors Surrogacy), Re: FD 28 Sep 2012

The children had been born in India to a surrogate mother. The biological father and his civil partner sought a parental order. The mother could not be found to give her consent. She had been provided anonymously through a clinic. Held: The request was granted, and a retrospective authorisation given for the making of payments … Continue reading D and L (Minors Surrogacy), Re: FD 28 Sep 2012

Re Z (A Child : Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act : Parental Order): FC 7 Sep 2015

The court was asked whether, in the light of the 1998 Act, section 54(1) of the 2008 Act should be read down so as to allow parental orders to be made in favour of just one person. Held: It could not. Sir James Munby P FD [2015] EWFC 73 Bailii Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act … Continue reading Re Z (A Child : Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act : Parental Order): FC 7 Sep 2015

Liversidge v Sir John Anderson: HL 3 Nov 1941

The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents. Held: The legislation must be interpreted to give effect to Parliament’s intention, even if that meant adding … Continue reading Liversidge v Sir John Anderson: HL 3 Nov 1941

Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell: HL 17 May 1990

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

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

Re Z (A Child : Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act : Parental Order); FC 7 Sep 2015

References: [2015] EWFC 73 Links: Bailii Coram: Sir James Munby P FD The court was asked whether, in the light of the 1998 Act, section 54(1) of the 2008 Act should be read down so as to allow parental orders to be made in favour of just one person. Held: It could not. Statutes: Human … Continue reading Re Z (A Child : Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act : Parental Order); FC 7 Sep 2015

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

Z (A Child) (No 2): FD 20 May 2016

Application for parental order by one person. Judges: Sir James Munby P Citations: [2016] EWHC 1191 (Fam), ZC15P00214 Links: Bailii, Judiciary Statutes: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 54 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Family Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.564509

X v Y v St Bartholomew’s Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine (Assisted Reproduction: Parent): FC 13 Feb 2015

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

Re IJ (A Child) (Foreign Surrogacy Agreement Parental Order): FD 19 Apr 2011

The court gave reasons for making a parental order under the 2008 Act in favour of the applicants where a child had been born under surrogacy arrangements which were lawful in the Ukraine where he was born, but would have been unlawful here because of payments going beyond reasonable expenses. Held: The order was made … Continue reading Re IJ (A Child) (Foreign Surrogacy Agreement Parental Order): FD 19 Apr 2011

In re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit): FD 3 Oct 2014

Extension of Time for Parental Order The court considered the making of a parental order in respect of a child through surrogacy procedures outside the time limits imposed by the 2008 Act. The child had been born under Indian surrogacy laws. The commissioning parents (now the applicants) had separated for a short time. Held: The … Continue reading In re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit): FD 3 Oct 2014

A v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant): FD 8 Jul 2011

M applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. The child had been born through a surrogacy arrangement in India, which was lawful there, but would have been unlawful here. The clinic could not guarantee a biological relationship with the child. The father had since died of liver cancer. The court considered whether the … Continue reading A v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant): FD 8 Jul 2011

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

Johansen v Norway: ECHR 7 Aug 1996

The court had to consider a permanent placement of a child with a view to adoption in oposition to the natural parents’ wishes. Held: Particular weight should be attached to the best interests of the child, which may override those of the parent: ‘These measures were particularly far-reaching in that they totally deprived the applicant … Continue reading Johansen v Norway: ECHR 7 Aug 1996

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: HL 26 Nov 1992

Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the cost to the employer, or … Continue reading Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: HL 26 Nov 1992

Marckx v Belgium: ECHR 13 Jun 1979

Recognition of illegitimate children The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. A recognised ‘illegitimate’ child’s rights of inheritance on … Continue reading Marckx v Belgium: ECHR 13 Jun 1979

A (A Child : Surrogacy: S54 Criteria): FD 18 Jun 2020

Proceedings concerned with one child A who is 3 years of age. His biological mother is M, the First Applicant, and his biological father is F, the Second Applicant. A was born as a result of a surrogacy agreement in which his mother’s and father’s gametes were used. The surrogate mother is SM, the First … Continue reading A (A Child : Surrogacy: S54 Criteria): FD 18 Jun 2020

Evans v United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Mar 2006

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

McMichael v United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Mar 1995

In the course of care proceedings, medical and social services’ reports were disclosed to the courts, but not to the parents involved. Held: The courts’ failure to show reports to the parents in care proceedings was a breach of the Convention. Both the Commission and the Court found a breach of Article 8 because the … Continue reading McMichael v United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Mar 1995

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

British Pregnancy Advisory Service v Secretary of State for Health: Admn 14 Feb 2011

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

X v Y (Employment: Sex Offender): CA 28 May 2004

The claimant had been dismissed after it was discovered he had been cautioned for a public homosexual act. He appealed dismissal of his claim saying that the standard of fairness applied was inappropriate with regard to the Human Rights Act, and that the state had a duty to protect him from private acts which breached … Continue reading X v Y (Employment: Sex Offender): CA 28 May 2004