Emma Sutton KC and Imogen Goold have appeared in the High Court, successfully representing a group of patients in the case of AA and others v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and others [2026] EWHC 317 (Fam), an important decision about the impact of amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to extend the limits for storage of gametes and embryos.

Fifteen applications were made to the court for declarations that it was lawful for gametes or embryos to continue to be stored at one of several fertility clinics and to be used in circumstances where in each of the cases written consent to storage has expired and was not renewed within the timeframes provided by legislation for renewal of such consent. These failures to renew occurred due to a variety of errors and against a background of mitigating circumstances. The statutory framework was, however, silent as to how such errors should be addressed.

These gametes and embryos fell to be removed from storage, and effectively destroyed, by 31 December 2024. Urgent injunctive relief was obtained in December 2024 to preserve the gametes and embryos until the substantive question of whether the applicants could lawfully renew consent could be decided.

Emma and Imogen (and Michael Mylonas KC who was instructed prior to the hearing) successfully argued that the Article 8 rights of each of the applicants were engaged, and that in each case their opportunity to become a parent in the genetic sense had been interfered with as a result of the fact that they were not now able to renew consent. The Court held that absent a solution within the statutory scheme, that a “reading in” of an implied opportunity to renew consent was required to prevent a breach of Article 8 ECHR.

The successful applicants were granted permission to renew their consent to storage, and they will now be able to use their gametes and embryos in future fertility treatments if they so wish. The significance of this decision to the individual patients cannot be underestimated. For example, in one case, the applicants wished to consent to their sole embryo being stored and used in circumstances where it was their last hope of having a child. The interference with their Article 8 rights was held to be significant, final and lifelong.

Emma and Imogen were instructed by LDMH Partners.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

For press coverage, please click here.