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 decisions are subject to review, but only as administrative ones. Scientists might disagree about the decision, but it could not be described as irrational.


Lord Justice Clarke and Mr Justice Wall


Times 21-Mar-2002, Gazette 21-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 20, [2003] 1 FCR 266




Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedQuintavalle 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167907