- Regulatory rules versus common sense
- Original news
- Briefly, what was the background to this case?
- What were the issues at appeal?
- What did the Court of Appeal decide? Why is the decision significant?
- Does the case expose any grey areas in HFEA 1990 and its application?
- To what extent has the court clarified the law, especially in relation to consent requirements?
- How does this case fit in with other developments in the law relating to fertility/surrogacy?
Family analysis: Natalie Gamble at specialist fertility law firm Natalie Gamble Associates says that like various other recent fertility law cases, R (IM and another) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority highlights the tension between regulatory rules which are designed to give clarity and certainty, and the need to temper those to deal with the human consequences of real situations.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial