EX22P00295 - [2025] EWHC 718 (Fam)

Mrs Justice Judd :

This is my judgment in relation to disclosure applications in this long running case. The proceedings concern a young person (Q) who seeks gender treatment. He is now almost 17. I made a decision last year (which is reported as O v P & Q [2024] EWHC 1077 (Fam)) that proceedings should be brought to an end in order to allow decisions as to future treatment to be made as between the young person and clinicians treating him at a private clinic registered in England known as Gender Plus.

The Court of Appeal overturned my decision to bring the proceedings for the reasons that were set out in the judgment at O v P & Q [2024] EWCA Civ 1577. Their order provided for the proceedings to be restored to me following the completion of the assessment at Gender Plus in the event that there was a dispute between the parties.

In the event the mother sought to restore the proceedings to me following the decision of the Court of Appeal. By that time the Administrative Court had granted permission for there to be a judicial review of the decision by the CQC to register the Gender Plus clinic. Also, the mother had discovered via social media that, with the full knowledge of the father and contrary to court orders, Q had been taking puberty blockers and hormones prescribed by Gender GP, a private online clinic registered and based in Singapore, since the summer of 2023. The proceedings before this court and the Court of Appeal had taken place on a false premise.

At my request the father filed a statement setting out his explanation as to how this had happened. He said that the delay in being able to access treatment had been very detrimental to Q, and that he had decided to allow him to engage with Gender GP (and to pay for his treatment) because he was very worried about his mental health and wellbeing.

Within these proceedings the mother is seeking for the court to make decisions as to whether continuing hormone treatment is in Q’s best interests. She is now particularly concerned that he is being treated via an unregulated and offshore organisation.

In order to inform her case, she seeks disclosure of a number of documents. First, she seeks disclosure of the report following the assessment at Gender Plus. Second, she seeks disclosure of the medical records from the assessment. Third, she seeks the medical records from Gender GP and fourth, the name of the pharmacy (or pharmacies) which is providing the hormone prescriptions issued by Gender GP.

The medical records from Gender GP are not yet available. The records from Gender Plus have only just been received by Q’s legal team. It is accepted that I cannot make a decision about those today.

Finally, the mother seeks permission to disclose information relating to these proceedings into a different claim for judicial review which seeks to overturn the government decision that hormone treatment can be provided to under 18s by private clinics. She seeks to provide a witness statement to the Administrative Court in support of that application. She has filed a draft for this court to consider.

Q objects to all of the disclosure. He objects to any of the Gender Plus report being provided to his mother. As a second position, he proposes that a few extracts of the report are disclosed to her. He objects to his mother being able to disclose information into the Judicial Review proceedings and raises doubts about her motives. The father supports Q in every respect.

The application for disclosure of the Gender Plus report is supported by the previous Guardian The current Guardian (who is not legally represented as public funding is not available), is new to the case and did not take a stance, albeit she commented that she found the views of the previous guardian persuasive.