JR176(2), Application for Judicial Review [2024] NICA 31 (26 April 2024)

The court finds that, if a male same sex couple is treated differently from female same sex couples or mixed sex couples regarding publicly funded gestational surrogacy, this prima facie raises direct discrimination issues warranting further determination.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] NICA 31
Parties: Appellant: JR176(2); Respondents: Department of Health, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Health and Social Care Board
Jurisdiction: Northern Ireland
Judgment Date: 26 April 2024
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Appeal, Directions Issued
Outcome: Directions issued for further evidence and joint position paper; appeal listed for further review.
Legal Topics: Discrimination, Publicly Funded IVF, Surrogacy, Same Sex Couples

Public Law Equality Law Health Law Discrimination Publicly Funded IVF Surrogacy Same Sex Couples

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

JR176(2)

Appellant

Department of Health, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Health and Social Care Board

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal, Directions Issued

Legal Issues

1 Whether refusal to provide publicly funded IVF treatment to a male same sex couple constitutes unlawful discrimination
2 Whether male same sex couples are treated differently from female same sex couples or mixed sex couples in respect of publicly funded fertility treatment

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Directions issued for further evidence and joint position paper; appeal listed for further review.

Orders

Parties to produce a joint position paper on treatment of couples in respect of publicly funded fertility treatment, jurisdiction, and outstanding issues.
If no agreement, parties to produce separate papers and attend a short hearing.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.