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

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

From global fraud cases to fishing off-grid, Mishcon de Reya’s chair of dispute resolution Hugo Plowman discusses mentors, management switching off

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law announces partner promotion and new hires amid a record year for enquiries

Switalskis—Rebecca Parry & Hannah Gamble

Switalskis—Rebecca Parry & Hannah Gamble

Switalskis wills and probate team extends reach with two appointments

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll