header-logo header-logo

15 July 2016
Issue: 7707 / 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 [2016] EWCA Civ 611, [2016] All ER (D) 06 (Jul)

The Court of Appeal allowed the applicants’ appeal against a refusal to set aside the decision of the respondent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority not to allow them to export their late daughter’s eggs to a clinic in the US to be fertilised with donor sperm and implanted in the applicant mother with the intention that any resulting child would be raised as the applicants’ grandchild. The decision had contained material misstatements of evidence concerning the daughter’s wishes, had failed to give reasons why it had considered that the daughter had had to have certain information before she could have given effective consent to the applicants’ proposed actions and had failed to have decided what relevant information the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 had required the daughter to have had.

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll