Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority v ARGC Ltd

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority v ARGC Ltd

The counterclaim was struck out and summary judgment entered because all claims for misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty, negligence, and A1P1 were either statute-barred or insufficiently particularised. Section 32 of the Limitation Act did not apply as ARGC always knew the facts necessary for its claim. Section 8ZA did not create actionable statutory duties. The court declined to exercise discretion to extend time under section 7(5) of the Human Rights Act due to lack of equitable grounds.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; Defendant/appellant: ARGC Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Strike Out of Counterclaim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for the Respondent; counterclaim struck out.
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Limitation of Actions, Statutory Duty, Negligence, Article 1 of the First Protocol (a1 P1), Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Licensing of Fertility Clinics
Administrative Law Tort Law Human Rights Law Misfeasance in Public Office Limitation of Actions Statutory Duty Negligence Article 1 of the First Protocol (a1 P1) +3 more

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

Claimant/respondent

ARGC Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Strike Out of Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim for misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty, negligence, and A1P1 was arguable or statute-barred
  2. 2 Whether section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 applied to extend limitation
  3. 3 Whether section 8ZA of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 created actionable statutory duties

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim was struck out and summary judgment entered because all claims for misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty, negligence, and A1P1 were either statute-barred or insufficiently particularised. Section 32 of the Limitation Act did not apply as ARGC always knew the facts necessary for its claim. Section 8ZA did not create actionable statutory duties. The court declined to exercise discretion to extend time under section 7(5) of the Human Rights Act due to lack of equitable grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for the Respondent; counterclaim struck out.

Orders

  • Counterclaim struck out
  • Summary judgment entered for the Respondent