AC-2024-LON-001142 - [2025] EWHC 2015 (Admin)

As I have previously referenced, C2 and IP4 and IP5 have also been involved in family law proceedings relating to the potential provision of the hormone treatment by IP1 to IP4. The main issue in those proceedings concerned the court’s power to override consent given or withheld by a child over 16 on best interests grounds (see O v P [2024] EWCA Civ 1577 at [3]), but the judgments of both Judd J in the High Court, and the Master of the Rolls in the Court of Appeal, touch on some points of relevance to the current litigation.

In her first instance decision of 8 May 2024, Judd J concluded that the proceedings should be dismissed as there was no realistic basis upon which the court would override IP4’s consent to treatment by a regulated clinician in this jurisdiction, observing:

“60.

The controversy over treatment of young people (whether privately or through the NHS) for gender-related distress or dysphoria is a matter of public interest, but it is something which should fall to be considered by medical and associated professions and their regulators, or if need be, the government. Although Gender Plus is a private provider the hormone clinic requires continued registration. Those who treat [IP4] could be liable in negligence if they do not provide a proper standard of care or fail to abide by guidelines without good reason. Ms Phillimore [then counsel for C2] submits that safeguards to date have not been sufficient for many young people, but once again, such issues are a matter for regulation and professional standards rather than a judge sitting in the Family or High Court.”

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the conclusion reached at first instance. In giving the lead judgment of the court (with which both Sir Andrew McFarlane P, and King LJ agreed), the Master of the Rolls explained the decision, as follows:

“38.

... The judge did not, I think, place enough weight on the rapidly changing regulatory environment and the situation of private providers like Gender Plus in the light of the recommendations made by the Cass Review.

39.

The parents agreed before the judge that it was appropriate for [IP4] to undergo a 6-month assessment by Gender Plus. But it was clear, as the judge acknowledged, that Gender Plus could not comply with recommendation 9 of the Cass Review as to the need for the case to be discussed by a national multi-disciplinary team of the kind envisaged. It is impossible now to predict the outcome of Gender Plus's assessment (we were told it is in progress, if not complete), nor the consequences that might or might not occur as a result of a potential non-compliance by the private provider with the good practice suggested by Dr Cass. ... In those circumstances, I think that the judge ought to have accorded significantly more weight to the possibility of genuine future disagreement, the rapidly changing regulatory environment and the fact that the services provided by private hormone clinics seem already to be in a somewhat different position from the same services provided by the NHS.”