The case, [2024] EWHC 3004 (Fam), was heard in the High Court of Justice, Family Division, at the Royal Courts of Justice, London. The judgment was delivered on 22 November 2024 by Mrs. Justice Theis DBE. The case number is FD24F00021.

Parties Involved:

• Applicant: EF
• Interested Party: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

Representation:

• For the Applicant: Jenni Richards KC and Stephanie David, instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP and LDMH Partners.
• For the Interested Party: Claire Watson KC, instructed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

Hearing Details:

• Date of Hearing: 21 October 2024

Key Facts:

• The case involved EF, the applicant, seeking a declaration of parenthood under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008).
• The dispute arose due to alleged errors or omissions in the statutory consent forms signed during fertility treatment.
• The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) was the interested party, representing regulatory oversight.
• The focus was on whether procedural defects in the forms invalidated EF’s legal recognition as a parent.

Main Legal Issues:

1. Validity of Consent Forms: Whether administrative errors (e.g., missing dates, unsigned declarations) render the consent invalid under the HFEA 2008.
2. Parental Status: Determining if EF could be legally recognized as the parent despite technical irregularities.
3. Interpretation of Statutory Requirements: Balancing strict compliance with the legislative intent to ensure fairness and clarity in assisted reproduction cases.

Observations:

• Justice Theis acknowledged that the HFEA 2008 prioritizes the clear intent of the parties in establishing parenthood, emphasizing the importance of consent rather than rigid procedural perfection.
• Reliance was placed on precedents such as Re A (2015) and D v. D (2016), which held that minor errors in forms should not negate parental intent.
• The court observed that EF had acted in good faith and that the omissions on the forms were not material to the validity of the consent.

Decision:

• The court ruled in favor of EF, granting the declaration of parenthood.
• It was held that administrative errors did not undermine the substantive compliance with the statutory requirements, as EF’s intent to be a parent was clear and unambiguous.