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.


Dobbs J


[2008] EWHC 3395 (Admin)




Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 16


England and Wales


CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Furneaux CA 1994
The court is entitled to refuse a request for judicial review on the sole ground of delay without any requirement of a causal link between the delay and any prejudice. Mere tardiness or incompetence of legal or other advisors is normally not a good . .
CitedRegina (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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Costs

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.293967