Rose, R (on the application of) v Thanet Clinical Commissioning Group
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE JAY
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Health Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Ms Elizabeth Rose, suffering from severe Crohn’s disease, sought NHS funding for oocyte cryopreservation before undergoing chemotherapy. The Thanet Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) denied the request, prompting this judicial review. Key issues included the rationality of the CCG's decision-making, the applicability of NICE guidelines, potential discrimination, and breaches of equality and human rights duties. The court upheld the CCG’s refusal but found the CCG failed to properly address NICE guidelines and equality duties in its new policy. Claims regarding past decisions and the Triage Group's decision were dismissed, but declaratory relief was discussed.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE JAY :
Introduction
Ms Elizabeth Rose (“the Claimant”) has suffered from a severe form of Crohn’s disease since she was 14. She is now aged 25 and her condition has deteriorated. Her doctors at King’s College Hospital are recommending that she undergo bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy with the expectation of bringing the disease into remission. Unfortunately, it is a probable outcome of this gonadotoxic therapy that the Claimant will be rendered infertile and suffer early onset of the menopause. Understandably, the Claimant wishes to secure the best chance of having her own genetic children, and she therefore seeks NHS funding for oocyte cryopreservation before the chemotherapy begins. Thanet Clinical Commissioning Group (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant” or “the CCG”, depending on context) has refused the Claimant’s application for funding on more than one occasion, giving rise to this application for judicial review. The Claimant is in receipt of Disability Living Allowance and Income Support (she previously worked in an art gallery before her condition deteriorated), and is in no position to afford the sum of £4,050 which is the anticipated cost of this Assistive Reproduction Technique (“ART”).
The application comes before me as a matter of extreme urgency. I am told that the chemotherapy can only be delayed for 4-6 weeks, and that oocyte preservation “takes a few weeks to complete”. On 21 st March 2014 HHJ Anthony Thornton QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge adjourned the application for permission to apply for judicial review to be listed as a “rolled-up” application as soon as possible on or after 7 th April. The parties are to be commended for preparing their respective cases within this compressed time-frame and for completing their able arguments within one day. Although the legal principles governing this application are not especially complex, the evidence is voluminous and careful navigation through the mass of detail is required.
In opening her case to me Ms Jenni Richards QC emphasised the importance of this case. Its importance to the Claimant must be evident, but it is also important to the Defendant for a very different reason. The sum of money at stake is not intrinsically large, but what is in issue is the CCG’s approach to all similar cases and the legal integrity of its policies.
Ms Richards also remarked that the Claimant’s case has evolved since its inception on 21 st March 2014. Defen