Mrs U v Centre for Reproductive Medicine, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Advocates

G Treverton-Jones QC (instructed by Messrs Bartlett Gooding & Weelen) for the Appellant
Angus Moon (instructed by Bevan Ashford) for the Respondent

Judges

LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY
LADY JUSTICE HALE

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Mrs U v. Centre for Reproductive Medicine

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, the widow of the deceased, appealed against an order permitting a reproductive medicine centre at The University to allow sperm surgically removed from her late husband to be destroyed. The husband had initially given written consent for the sperm to be stored and used after his death but later altered this consent during a consultation with a specialist nurse. He died unexpectedly before any further treatment could be completed. The widow sought to use the sperm to attempt pregnancy, arguing that the withdrawal of consent was the result of undue influence. The President of the Family Division granted permission to appeal, finding the decision finely balanced.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the withdrawal of consent by the deceased husband regarding the storage and use of his sperm was valid or vitiated by undue influence.
Whether the reproductive medicine centre has effective consent under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to continue storing and using the sperm posthumously.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The original consent should stand because the withdrawal was the result of undue influence exerted by the centre's nursing staff.
The consultation in which the consent was altered was conducted under pressure, with the husband believing that treatment would be delayed or halted if he did not amend the consent form.
The husband and wife were vulnerable due to the emotional, mental, and financial investment in the treatment process.
The test for undue influence should focus on whether the husband had a real choice at the time of changing the consent, not merely whether his will was overborne.

Respondent's Arguments (The Centre)

The centre remained neutral as to the decision but sought guidance from the court on the appropriate course of action.
They denied allegations of duress, undue influence, or misrepresentation by their staff.
Without effective consent, continued storage of the sperm would be unlawful and potentially a criminal offence under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re T (Adult: Refusal of treatment) [1993] Fam 95	Doctrine of necessity and the standard for undue influence in consent withdrawal.	The President applied the principle that strong persuasion does not amount to undue influence unless the independence of decision-making is overborne. The court upheld the President’s conclusion that the husband’s change of consent was not made under compulsion.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] 3 WLR 1021	Clarification of the test for undue influence as a question of fact.	The Appellant relied on this authority to argue for a different application of the undue influence test, but the court found no error in the President’s factual application of the test.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the statutory framework under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which emphasises the necessity of effective, unwithdrawn written consent for the storage and use of gametes. It noted the legislative provisions regulating consent, withdrawal, and the conditions under which gametes may be stored or used, including the criminal offences for non-compliance.

The court analysed the facts surrounding the husband's alteration of his consent form, including the timing, the setting of the consultation, and the nature of the pressure applied by the nursing sister. The President’s findings were given significant weight, as she had the advantage of hearing oral evidence and assessing credibility.

While acknowledging the emotional and vulnerable context of the consultation, the court concluded that the pressure exerted did not amount to undue influence sufficient to invalidate the withdrawal of consent. The husband was found to have made the alteration voluntarily, albeit under pressure, but without his will being overborne or his autonomy destroyed.

The court emphasised the statutory scheme’s focus on clear consent and the risks of undermining it through expansive notions of undue influence. It rejected the Appellant’s argument that the test should differ or that the President applied it too strictly, noting that the centre must be entitled to rely on the written consent forms unless clear evidence of invalidity such as forgery or duress is shown.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal, upholding the order permitting the destruction of the stored sperm.

The direct effect of this decision is that the reproductive medicine centre may lawfully allow the sperm to perish or be destroyed, as the withdrawal of consent by the deceased husband is valid. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reinforces the strict statutory regime governing consent in assisted reproduction and the high evidential threshold for invalidating consent on grounds such as undue influence.