High Court hears father's challenge to Suffolk GP practice that prescribed hormones to transgender teen

A father known only as ATN launched a High Court challenge against GP partnership WellBN after his transgender child, known only as ATT, was prescribed cross-sex hormones through the NHS. The case was heard before Mr Justice MacDonald at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Strict reporting restrictions mean neither the teenager nor family can be identified.

ATT was prescribed oestrogen and spironolactone through an “informed consent” model without a full specialist NHS gender clinic assessment. WellBN offered NHS funded hormone treatment to under 17s in East and West Suffolk after blood tests, a single 40-minute appointment and the signing of a consent form.

Around 70 young patients may have received similar treatment, according to court submissions.

Vikram Sachdeva KC appeared for the father ATN. He said the WellBN policy was contrary to NHS guidance issued after the Cass Review. Baroness Cass recommended “extreme caution” when prescribing masculinising and feminising hormones to children and young people.

The Royal College of GPs issued guidance earlier this year stating prescribing gender affirming hormones to under 18s “was not part of the GP role”. GMC guidance only allows “bridging prescriptions” for adults. Sachdeva told the court the GP practice’s approach was inconsistent with the approach of joint decision making and that children’s gender treatment is commissioned as a specialist NHS service rather than ordinary GP care.

NHS England informed WellBN it had “no lawful basis for providing NHS funded treatment of this kind”. GB News reported that NHS England was concerned the practice had been “mimicking a specialist gender service”. NHS England launched an independent safety investigation into the practice.

WellBN stopped prescribing hormones to under 18s in April last year after intervention from NHS bodies. Nicola Newbegin KC appeared for WellBN. She argued the case should be dismissed because the prescribing policy was no longer operating.

Newbegin stated that WellBN had “no intention” of failing to comply with NHS England instructions. She told the court there was “no public interest in the claim proceeding” and that the challenge was unsustainable. The barrister added that the debate over whether under 18s should receive gender affirming hormones was “not something the court can, let alone should, seek to resolve”.

ATN brought the case because “he doesn’t want other families to go through what he has been through”, Sachdeva said. The father’s legal team argued the case should still proceed because WellBN had not accepted its previous prescribing policy was unlawful.

Lawyers for ATN told the court his child was prescribed hormone replacement therapy without his parents’ consent and in a manner wholly inconsistent with current NHS guidelines.

At one stage Mr Justice MacDonald questioned whether complaints about GP conduct should instead be dealt with by medical regulators. The partnership argued ATT themselves were “noticeably not bringing this claim”. Some material relied upon by the father reflected “historic positions” previously published on the practice’s website.

Mr Justice MacDonald reserved judgment and will deliver his ruling in writing at a later date.