Dean Gregory v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Ors

Dean Gregory v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Ors

The judge had sufficient, unanimous, and comprehensive medical evidence to determine Indi's best interests and the necessity of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Further expert evidence was not necessary, and the trial complied with procedural fairness and human rights requirements.

Parties
Defendant/appellant: Dean Gregory; Applicant/respondent: Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Applicant/respondent: Indi Gregory (By her CAFCASS Guardian, Kathleen Cull-Fitzpatrick); Applicant/respondent: Claire Staniforth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Division Medical Treatment / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment, Best Interests of Child, Expert Evidence, Equality of Arms, Discrimination, Right to Life
Family Law Medical Law Human Rights Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment Best Interests of Child Expert Evidence Equality of Arms Discrimination +1 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean Gregory

Defendant/appellant

Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Applicant/respondent

Indi Gregory (By her CAFCASS Guardian, Kathleen Cull-Fitzpatrick)

Applicant/respondent

Claire Staniforth

Applicant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Division Medical Treatment / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission for further expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial complied with equality of arms and Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment amounts to discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The judge had sufficient, unanimous, and comprehensive medical evidence to determine Indi's best interests and the necessity of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Further expert evidence was not necessary, and the trial complied with procedural fairness and human rights requirements.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against the High Court order is refused
  • No further expert evidence to be adduced