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- Application withdrawn; costs awarded against local authority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.
Parties
Local Authority
Applicant
Mother
1st Respondent
Father
2nd Respondent
Sam
3rd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Inherent Jurisdiction (family) / Final Hearing; Application for Withdrawal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should permit withdrawal of the local authority's application under inherent jurisdiction
- 2 Whether the local authority's conduct was unreasonable for costs purposes
- 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Application withdrawn; costs awarded against local authority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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment