Bell v Tavistock

Bell v Tavistock
Court	Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Full case name	Bell and another v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
Decided	17 September 2021
Citation	[2021] EWCA Civ 1363
Case history
Prior actions	R (on the application of Quincy Bell and A) v Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and others [2020] EWHC 3274 (Admin), judgment 1 December 2020
Related action	AB v CD and others
Court membership
Judges sitting	Original action before the High Court: Dame Victoria Sharp (President of the Queen's Bench Division) Lord Justice Lewis Mrs Justice Lieven On appeal: Lord Burnett of Maldon (Lord Chief Justice) Sir Geoffrey Vos (Master of the Rolls) Dame Eleanor King (Lady Justice of Appeal)
Case opinions
High Court judgment quashed: The High Court should not have issued guidance on the Gillick test and puberty blockers.
Keywords
puberty blocker

Bell v Tavistock was a case before the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) on the question of whether puberty blockers could be prescribed to under-16s with gender dysphoria.^[1] The Court of Appeal said that "it was for clinicians rather than the court to decide on competence" to consent to receive puberty blockers.^[2]

The case was related to Gillick competence, the legal principle governing under what circumstances under-16s can consent to medical treatment in their own right. By contrast, people aged 16 or older were presumed to have the ability to consent to medical treatment (Gillick did not apply). The High Court (Administrative Court) ruling,^[3][4] which was overturned on appeal, said that it was unlikely that a child under the age of 16 could be Gillick competent to consent to puberty blocking treatment. The court also said that "[in] respect of young persons aged 16 and over… we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment".

In September 2021, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court judgment, and ruled that the High Court should not have issued guidance on the Gillick test and puberty blockers, because that court should have dismissed the case when it ruled that the Tavistock guidance was lawful. In a separate case (AB v CD and others), the High Court ruled that parents are allowed to give consent on behalf of their children to receive puberty blockers without having to gain a judge's approval.