A father is suing the GP partnership WellBN over hormone prescriptions issued to his transgender child through the NHS, arguing the practice’s policy was unlawful and bypassed established clinical safeguards. The man, identified only as ATN, has brought a High Court challenge against the Sussex-based partnership after his teenage child, referred to in court as ATT, was prescribed oestrogen and spironolactone under what lawyers described as an “informed consent” model — a process that allowed treatment without a full specialist NHS gender clinic assessment.
Strict reporting restrictions mean neither the teenager nor the family can be identified. The case was heard before Mr Justice MacDonald at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
The legal challenge
Appearing for the father, Vikram Sachdeva KC told the court that ATT was prescribed hormone replacement therapy “without his parents’ consent and in a manner wholly inconsistent with current NHS guidelines”. The challenge centres on the question of whether GPs should be prescribing gender-affirming hormones to children outside specialist NHS gender services, particularly in the wake of the Cass Review — the independent review of NHS gender identity services for children and young people chaired by Dr Hilary Cass.
Baroness Cass’s final report, published in April 2024, recommended “extreme caution” when prescribing masculinising and feminising hormones to children and young people, and suggested either a “clear clinical rationale” for providing such treatment to under-18s or waiting until they turn 18. Mr Sachdeva argued that WellBN’s policy was contrary to the guidance that followed the review. He said the partnership’s approach was “inconsistent with the approach of joint decision making” and that children’s gender treatment is commissioned as a specialist NHS service, not ordinary GP care. The Royal College of GPs issued guidance earlier this year stating that prescribing gender-affirming hormones to under-18s “was not part of the GP role”.
The father’s legal team also pointed to General Medical Council guidance, which allows “bridging prescriptions” only for adults in specific circumstances, such as to mitigate the risk of self-harm or suicide, and only after seeking specialist advice. Mr Sachdeva argued that the prescribing model adopted by WellBN “results in inevitably negligent and unlawful practice”.
He told the court that his client brought the case because “he doesn’t want other families to go through what he has been through”.
The prescribing policy
According to written submissions read to the court, 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. The court heard that around 70 young patients may have received similar treatment. The partnership stopped prescribing hormones to under-18s in April last year following intervention from NHS bodies.
Mr Sachdeva told the court that NHS England had informed the partnership it had “no lawful basis for providing NHS funded treatment of this kind”. NHS England subsequently launched an independent safety investigation into WellBN, expressing concern that the practice had been “mimicking a specialist gender service”.
Despite halting the prescribing, the father’s lawyers argued the case should still proceed because WellBN had not accepted that its previous policy was unlawful. The court heard that after restrictions on puberty blockers were announced, the practice publicly stated: “As providers of these drugs we believe this is targeted discrimination towards transgender youth.” Mr Sachdeva argued the case raised wider public interest issues about whether GP practices should prescribe hormones to children at all.
The research briefing provides additional context: NHS Sussex, in conjunction with NHS England, also launched an investigation into WellBN’s prescribing practices for under-18s, reviewing patient records to assess whether care followed national clinical policy. WellBN is resisting the handover of patient data, citing patient consent.
The judge’s decision
Appearing for WellBN, Nicola Newbegin KC argued the case should be dismissed because the prescribing policy was no longer operating. She told the court there was “no public interest in the claim proceeding”, that the partnership had already stopped providing the treatment complained of and had “no intention” of failing to comply with NHS England instructions. She described the challenge as “unsustainable” and having a “total lack of merit”.
Ms Newbegin also said the debate over whether under-18s should receive gender-affirming hormones was “not something the court can, let alone should, seek to resolve”. She noted that the child, ATT, was “noticeably not bringing this claim”, and argued that some material relied upon by the father reflected “historic positions” previously published on the practice’s website.
At one stage, Mr Justice MacDonald questioned whether complaints about GP conduct should instead be dealt with by medical regulators. The judge reserved judgment at the end of the hearing and will deliver his ruling in writing at a later date.