R. (M.) v R. (T.) & Ors [2006] IEHC 359 (15 November 2006)

R. (M.) v R. (T.) & Ors [2006] IEHC 359 (15 November 2006)

The term 'unborn' in Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution does not include embryos in vitro; therefore, the three frozen embryos at issue do not have constitutional protection and the plaintiff is not entitled to their implantation without the first defendant's consent.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 359
Parties
Plaintiff: M. R.; First Named Defendant: T. R.; Second Named Defendant: Dr. Anthony Walsh; Third Named Defendant: Dr. David Walsh; Fourth Named Defendant: Sims Clinic Limited; Notice Party: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 November 2006
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Action / Judgment After Trial on Agreed Issues
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for implantation of embryos dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of 'unborn' Under Constitution, IVF and Embryo Rights, Consent in Assisted Reproduction, Interpretation of Article 40.3.3, Parental Rights and Obligations
Constitutional Law Family Law Medical Law Definition of 'unborn' Under Constitution IVF and Embryo Rights Consent in Assisted Reproduction Interpretation of Article 40.3.3 Parental Rights and Obligations

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. R.

Plaintiff

T. R.

First Named Defendant

Dr. Anthony Walsh

Second Named Defendant

Dr. David Walsh

Third Named Defendant

Sims Clinic Limited

Fourth Named Defendant

The Attorney General

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Action / Judgment After Trial on Agreed Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether frozen embryos are 'unborn' for the purposes of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland
  2. 2 Whether there was an agreement between the plaintiff and first defendant regarding implantation of embryos and if it remains binding
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the embryos implanted by virtue of constitutional rights

Ratio Decidendi

The term 'unborn' in Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution does not include embryos in vitro; therefore, the three frozen embryos at issue do not have constitutional protection and the plaintiff is not entitled to their implantation without the first defendant's consent.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for implantation of embryos dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the three frozen embryos are not 'unborn' within Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution
  • No order for implantation or transfer of embryos