Mrs Justice Eady DBE
Mrs Justice Eady DBE:
Introduction
This claim relates to decisions taken by the Care Quality Commission (“CQC”) regarding the registration and assessment of Gender Plus Healthcare Limited (a private gender dysphoria clinic), which is the first interested party in these proceedings (“IP1”). The case brought by the two claimants (“C1” and “C2”) is concerned with treatment provided by IP1 to 16 and 17 year olds involving the prescription of hormones, referred to either as “cross-sex hormones” or “gender-affirming hormones”; for the purposes of this judgment, I have referred to this as “the hormone treatment”.
The hormone treatment in issue involves the prescription of masculinising or feminising hormones (oestrogen; testosterone), introducing irreversible changes to the patient’s body. There are strongly held views about this treatment and an expert panel is due to report to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on its use for those under 18. At present, however, the treatment provided by IP1 to 16 and 17 year olds is permitted by law, and the issue I am required to determine is not whether that is correct, but whether specific decisions made by the CQC are irrational and/or unlawful.
- Heading
- This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand down is deemed to be 2pm on
- Mrs Justice Eady DBE
- Preliminary issue
- The decisions under challenge and the issues for determination
- The factual background
- The context
- The chronology relevant to the decisions under challenge and the current proceedings
- The registration decision
- The assessment decision
- IP1 patient data
- Advocacy
- O v P
- The statutory framework
- Regulated activity
- Registration of persons who carry on regulated activity
- Reviews and performance assessments
- Fundamental standards
- Statutory guidance for registered persons
- Relevant legal principles
- Process rationality
- Outcome rationality
- The Padfield principle
- The parties’ arguments
- The position of the CQC
- IP1’s position
- Analysis and conclusions
- Process irrationality
- Outcome irrationality
- The Padfield challenge
- Conclusions
![AC-2024-LON-001142 - [2025] EWHC 2015 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)