Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre, R (on the application of) v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2002] EWCA Civ 20 (31st January, 2002)

Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre, R (on the application of) v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2002] EWCA Civ 20 (31st January, 2002)

The Authority's decisions were lawful, rational, and proportionate; it did not fetter its discretion, considered all relevant factors including Mrs H's individual circumstances, and any interference with ECHR rights was justified and minimal. The applications for permission to appeal and for judicial review were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 20
Parties
First Appellant/claimant: Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre; Second Appellant/claimant: H; Respondent/defendant: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal Against Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review and Costs Order
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Discretion of Regulatory Authorities, Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Medical Regulation, European Convention on Human Rights
Administrative Law Health Law Human Rights Judicial Review Discretion of Regulatory Authorities Human Fertilisation and Embryology Medical Regulation European Convention on Human Rights

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre

First Appellant/claimant

H

Second Appellant/claimant

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal Against Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Authority fettered its discretion by rigidly applying its Code of Practice
  2. 2 Whether the Authority failed to consider relevant factors or took into account irrelevant considerations
  3. 3 Whether the Authority's decision was irrational or disproportionate under domestic law and the ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority's decisions were lawful, rational, and proportionate; it did not fetter its discretion, considered all relevant factors including Mrs H's individual circumstances, and any interference with ECHR rights was justified and minimal. The applications for permission to appeal and for judicial review were unarguable and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against costs order refused
  • Permission to apply for judicial review of the Authority's second decision refused