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 does not provide, I do not see how a mere failure to comply with the HFEA’s direction that Form WP and Form PP ‘must’ be used can, of itself, invalidate what would otherwise be a consent valid for the purposes of section 37 or section 44. These sections do not prescribe a specific form. What is required is a ‘notice’ and that is not defined, although I would agree with Miss Broadfoot that, given the context, what is required is a document of some formality. The argument must be that it is the combined operation of section 12(1)(d) of the 1990 Act, which in effect elevates this requirement into a condition of the licence, coupled with the words ‘treatment provided . . under the licence’ in sections 37(1)(a) and 44(1)(a) (and the corresponding words ‘being so treated’ in sections 37(1)(b) and 44(1)(b)), that invalidates what would otherwise be a consent valid for the purposes of section 37 or section 44.’
. . And ‘in principle:
i) The court can act on parol evidence to establish that a Form WP or a Form PP which cannot be found was in fact properly completed and signed before the treatment began;
ii) The court can ‘correct’ mistakes in a Form WP or a Form PP either by rectification, where the requirements for that remedy are satisfied, or, where the mistake is obvious on the face of the document, by a process of construction without the need for rectification.
iii) A Form IC, if it is in the form of the Barts Form IC or the MFS Form IC as I have described them above, will, if properly completed and signed before the treatment began, meet the statutory requirements without the need for a Form WP or a Form PP.
iv) It follows from this that the court has the same powers to ‘correct’ a Form IC as it would have to ‘correct’ a Form WP or a Form PP.’
Sir James Munby
 EWHC 2602 (Fam),  1 WLR 1325, (2015) 146 BMLR 123,  3 FCR 555,  1 All ER 273,  WLR(D) 387,  Fam Law 1333
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008
England and Wales
Cited – AB v CD FD 24-May-2013
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 . .
Cited – Wallersteiner v Moir CA 1974
The making of a declaration is a judicial act. A shareholder is entitled to bring a derivative action on behalf of the company when it is controlled by persons alleged to have injured the company who refuse to allow the company to sue. It is an . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Health Professions
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.552779