Search results
J - Records of the Supreme Court of Judicature and related courts; Division within J - Records of the Queen's (King's) Bench Division; J 55 - Supreme Court of Judicature: High Court of Justice, Common Pleas, Exchequer and Queen's Bench Divisions: Pleadings; J 55/2 - Statements of claims, counterclaims, etc. (Described at item level)
- Case Facts
- The Decision of The Divisional Court
- Grounds For Appeal
- Judgment of The Court of Appeal
- Will This Case Go to The Supreme Court?
The initial case concerned an application by two claimants. First, Kiera Bell, who had previously been a patient of the GIDS centre, part of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, and had been provided with puberty blockers aged 16. She later went on to be treated with cross sex hormones and then underwent surgery as an adult. She alleges that that s...
Although the Divisional Court did not hold that the policies and practices of the Tavistock were unlawful, it made a declaration which provided guidelines as to when a child will be competent to give informed consent to puberty blockers. They set out 8 factors that the child would have to understand, retain and weigh up: 1. the immediate consequenc...
The Tavistock appealed against the declaration and submitted that the guidance given by the Divisional Court was wrong in law. They put forward eight grounds of appeal: 1. Ground 1: Error of law: improper restriction imposed, despite binding authority of Gillick 2. Ground 2: Error of law: wrongful application of the law on mental capacity as it app...
The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal by Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust. It held that the Divisional court was wrong to make the make the declaration and provide the above guidance. At paragraphs 61-65, they addressed the question of whether the Divisional Court approached the evidence appropriately. They stated that it was not for the court heari...
This case has attracted a lot of attention amongst lawyers, the medical profession and the media. The Court of Appeal decision is likely to come as welcome news to the transgender community. It is not yet known whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court will be sought.
1 day ago · V Amendment, IV Amendment. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946), was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that individuals have an implied cause of action under the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment to recover damages against federal government officials who violate those rights. The court further held that federal courts must entertain ...
Each summary begins with a review of the main case facts and decision. The summary is then concluded with expert commentary on the case from the author, Nicola Jackson, including an assessment of the wider questions raised by the decision.
Sep 17, 2021 · In a huge win for trans people and their families, the Court of Appeal has today reversed the judgment handed down in Bell v Tavistock by the Divisional Court.
Mar 15, 2001 · Case Summary. On 16th August 2000, District Judge Fink ordered the sale of Mrs Bell's home at 205 Coulsdon Road, Old Coulsdon, Surrey, CR3 1EL pursuant to the provisions of 335A of the Insolvency Act 1986. Mrs Bell appealed this decision, but her appeal was dismissed.
Nov 5, 1999 · Bell v Jackson. Smart Summary (Beta) Action of Damages by the Pursuer. Sheriff Court at Glasgow. 5 November 1999. Pursuer vs. Defender. Facts: The pursuer brought an action of damages in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow. After hearing arguments from the defender's solicitor and the pursuer himself, the Sheriff found the action to be irrelevant.
