Nicola Newbegin KC and Ben Jones, instructed by Brendan Costello of Gordons Partnership, successfully represented the Defendant in a high-profile judicial review concerning the prescription of gender affirming hormones to under 18s, in which MacDonald J refused the Claimant permission to apply for judicial review.
ATN, the father of a trans girl, sought permission to judicially review the (then) practice of a GP practice (WellBN) of prescribing gender affirming hormones (as distinct from puberty blockers) to patients under the age of 16, including to his daughter (ATT).
Throughout the lengthy proceedings (which had gone on for over a year despite only ever reaching the permission stage), WellBN had argued that, not only was the claim out of time but that, as a private partnership providing GP services, they are not a public body subject to judicial review, the Claimant had not articulated a decision that was amenable to judicial review and that the correct forum was always the Family Court. Moreover, since the cessation of the Defendant’s practice in respect of prescribing gender affirming hormones in April 2025, and the resolution of matters in respect of ATT via separate Family Law Proceedings (see ATN and NTT v BTN [2025] EWHC 1325 (Fam)), the claims had become academic and, for that further reason, should not proceed.
MacDonald J, following a lengthy permission hearing on 14 May 2026, held that the claim was both out of time and academic.
The claim had not been made promptly and in any event within three months, with time having run from when the Claimant first became affected by the policy or practice (R (Badmus) v Home Secretary [2020] 1 WLR 1409). The Claimant by his own evidence explained that he had discovered on 19 October 2024 that ATT had accessed gender affirming hormones but did not issue his claim until 7 February 2025.
In addition, the claim had become academic. So far as ATT was concerned, she had since been referred to a specialist NHS service, the matter having been resolved by agreement in the proceedings in the Family Division, meaning that the claim was now academic as far as the rights and obligations of the parties was concerned. Whilst academic claims can be permitted to proceed in exceptional circumstances, there were no such circumstances in the present case. In particular the Defendant had ceased its prescribing policy and there was no evidence of any other similar claims. In addition, the MacDonald J held that:
“I am satisfied that the lawfulness, safety and merit generally of prescriptions of gender affirming hormones to persons under the age of 18 in the context of the outcome of the Cass Review is not an issue appropriate for determination by way of judicial review. The question of whether and in what circumstances all persons under the age of 18 who seek it should be prescribed gender affirming hormones having regard to the outcome of the Cass Review is subject to an intense ongoing debate, both within the medical profession and more broadly in the political arena and within wider society. It is a decision that requires to be informed by research, broad public debate and open consultation. In these circumstances, a single fact specific case that has now become academic is not the appropriate forum to resolve this political, social and medical controversy.”
The judge also noted that there was also a public interest in not putting ATT through the considerable stress of further litigation in an academic case, particularly where the Claimant’s case was wholly at odds with the position taken by ATT. Finally, the judge noted the concerns previously raised by both the Defendant and the Court about the appropriate forum for such proceedings and that an alternative remedy had been obtained in the Family Division.
Note:
The case is a useful reminder of the strict time limits applicable in judicial review proceedings and of the need to ensure that judicial review is the correct forum for the complaint.
The judgment also contains useful guidance as to the circumstances in which it is permitted (or not) to provide further written submissions to the judge after the hearing of the case has concluded but before judgment has been handed down.
Case Name: ATN v WellBn Partnership and Ors [2026] EWHC 1567 (Admin)
