Re S (Inherent Jurisdiction: Transgender Surgery Abroad)

Re S (Inherent Jurisdiction: Transgender Surgery Abroad)

The local authority could not prove Sam was likely to suffer significant harm or that surgery was unlawful or consent invalid; its continued prosecution of the application after evidence gaps were filled was unreasonable, justifying costs orders.

Parties
Applicant: Local Authority; 1st Respondent: Mother; 2nd Respondent: Father; 3rd Respondent: Sam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Inherent Jurisdiction (family) / Final Hearing; Application for Withdrawal
Outcome
Application withdrawn; costs awarded against local authority
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction, Transgender Surgery, Consent, Significant Harm, Welfare, Costs

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Applicant

Mother

1st Respondent

Father

2nd Respondent

Sam

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Inherent Jurisdiction (family) / Final Hearing; Application for Withdrawal

  1. 1 Whether the court should permit withdrawal of the local authority's application under inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the local authority's conduct was unreasonable for costs purposes
  3. 3 Whether Sam was likely to suffer significant harm if surgery proceeded

Ratio Decidendi

The local authority could not prove Sam was likely to suffer significant harm or that surgery was unlawful or consent invalid; its continued prosecution of the application after evidence gaps were filled was unreasonable, justifying costs orders.

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn; costs awarded against local authority

Orders

  • Leave granted to withdraw application
  • All continuing orders discharged