header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 November 2015 / Kirstie Gibson
Issue: 7676 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Fertile ground

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7676_gibson

Kirstie Gibson considers the court’s approach to the acquisition of parenthood

The recent decision of the President of the Family Division in Re Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Cases A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H) [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam), [2015] All ER (D) 57 (Sep) highlights the serious repercussions of non-compliance with the requirements for obtaining consent to parenthood and provides a useful reminder of the steps that fertility clinics must take.

The applicants were parents of children conceived following fertility treatment at various clinics. Each applicant had, at the time of the birth of their child, understood that they were the parent of their child. They thought they had complied with the legal requirements to acquire parenthood. Unfortunately due to the administrative incompetence of the clinics, that was not the case.

Re Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Cases A–H) raised questions as to the extent of the regulatory powers of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in allowing such administrative incompetence to exist in relation to, what Munby P

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll