header-logo header-logo

26 June 2015
Issue: 7658 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Medicine

R (on the application of IM and another) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2015] EWHC 1706 (Admin), [2015] All ER (D) 152 (Jun)

The defendant Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority refused to permit the export of the claimants’ deceased daughter’s eggs to a treatment centre in New York to be fertilised and implanted in the mother. The claimants sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant’s decision, that the deceased’s wishes had not been sufficiently clear and informed, had been rational and it had not failed to realise or consider the full extent of its discretionary powers. Further, the claimants had had no right to use the eggs, under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll