G v Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority & Anor

G v Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority & Anor

The application fails because there is insufficient evidence that N gave informed consent to the posthumous use of her eggs in the manner proposed, and G does not have enforceable Article 8 ECHR rights to pursue the application. The statutory requirements for written, signed, and informed consent under HFEA 1990 are not met, and there is no basis to read them down under the Human Rights Act 1998 in this case.

Parties
Applicant: G; 1st Intervenor: Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority; 2nd Intervenor: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Family / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Posthumous Use of Gametes, Consent in Assisted Reproduction, Surrogacy, Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights Article 8, Interpretation of HFEA 1990
Family Law Human Rights Law Medical Law Posthumous Use of Gametes Consent in Assisted Reproduction Surrogacy Human Rights Act 1998 European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 +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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G

Applicant

Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority

1st Intervenor

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

2nd Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Family / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the posthumous use of N's frozen eggs for surrogacy and adoption by G is lawful without written consent under HFEA 1990
  2. 2 Whether G has enforceable Article 8 ECHR rights to pursue the application
  3. 3 Whether the statutory consent requirements can be read down under the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The application fails because there is insufficient evidence that N gave informed consent to the posthumous use of her eggs in the manner proposed, and G does not have enforceable Article 8 ECHR rights to pursue the application. The statutory requirements for written, signed, and informed consent under HFEA 1990 are not met, and there is no basis to read them down under the Human Rights Act 1998 in this case.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed