Father claims surgery gave his daughter hormone therapy unlawfully

A father who claims a doctors’ surgery unlawfully prescribed hormones to his transgender child without his knowledge will not be allowed to see a report on the controversial clinic.

Three surgeries in Brighton are run by WellBN which was the subject of a patient safety investigation by the NHS last year after concerns that gender-affirming care was being offered ‘inappropriately’.

The prescription of puberty blockers to new patients under 18 was banned in 2024, but doctors are allowed to keep giving them to children who already have prescriptions.

The group stopped accepting new transgender child patients after it was threatened with legal action by the Integrated Care Board last year but it continues to prescribe puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to those who are already under their care.

A report was produced after an investigation into whether patients had been harmed by the prescription of hormones and if doctors should be referred to the police or professional standards authorities.

Both NHS England and WellBN have seen the report, and the father, who is trying to bring a case against the surgery for their treatment of his child, wants it to be disclosed to him

But a judge ruled at the High Court that he should not see the dossier as it is not relevant to his case.

Vikram Sachdeva, KC, representing the parent, who is known only as ‘ATN’ said the father demanded a meeting with doctors and practices bosses after discovering the child was being given the therapy.

‘He sought a meeting making clear that neither parent consented to the treatment, but to no avail,’ Mr Sachdeva said.

He then complained to various bodies including the local authority and the ombudsman, and brought a legal challenge in February last year after those routes failed.

In March 2025, the NHS issued guidance telling GP surgeries not to prescribe hormones to under-18s, and advised them to refer patients to specialist gender clinics.

On 8 April, NHS England wrote a letter to the Integrated Care Board expressing concern that clinics policy for prescribing hormones to 17-18 was ‘neither a bridging prescription [until they could seek specialist care] nor support to seek a multi disciplinary team.’

Two days later the ICB told the GP practice to stop prescribing hormones to children threatening to suspend their practicing license and the clinic stopped writing new prescriptions.

They replied to the ICB on 15 April, reaffirming that they believe they are entitled to provide this care, arguing that transgender and non-binary people have an illness from which recovery is expected after treatment.

Mr Sachdeva said WellBN’s practice was ‘mimicking highly specialised service’ and was not commissioned to provide that service by NHS England or the ICB.

He said: ‘The claimant says the policy in general is unlawful because the defendant has not been commissioned to provide these services under the NHS.

‘These are not considered to be essential services under the NHS.’

Mr Justice MacDonald said: ‘This court is dealing with a specific claim by a claimant, it’s not this court’s role to mediate the dispute between the NHS and the claimant.’

Mr Sachdeva referred the court to the Cass Report of 2024 which found evidence for medical intervention in gender care for minors is low quality, with a lack of comprehensive research.

It recommended the prescription of hormones to under-18s with ‘extreme caution’ and a ‘clear clinical rationale’.

‘This case is not just in relation to his own child, it is in relation to a GP who appears to be flouting the authoritative recommendations in the Cass Report,’ the barrister said.

‘There is a public interest in it being determined.’

Mr Sachdeva said: ‘The policy is unlawful under the common law, in implying that a GP could lawfully give such treatment after the Cass review and the NHS guidance.

‘There is no sign that the defendant has taken any account of the authoritative sources, no mention at all of any of the guidance.’

Asking the judge to disclose the independent report into patient safety, Alexis Hearnden, representing the child, said: ‘My Lord is alive to the impact that these proceedings have of ATT…if disclosure is granted and there is an adjournment as the claimant suggests to a later date, and I invite my Lord to factor that in.’

Nicola Newbegin KC, representing WellBN, said: ‘The defendant objects to the disclosure of this report on the basis that it simply isn’t relevant.

‘It’s not a situation where however tempting we can just provide it…we are under strict confidentiality obligations to the NHS and people named in the report.’

Mr Justice MacDonald said: ‘This court is concerned with the permissions stage of a judicial review of the defendant which is a GP practice.

‘The claim is brought by the father of a minor treated at that practice.

‘There is an application to adjourn the permission hearing and make a disclosure order in respect of a report.

‘The claimant argues that the policy was unlawful, that treatment was not lawfully funded or provided.

‘The report deals with a different set of questions – the consequences of the policy and whether further action should be taken.

‘I am not able to accept the claimant’s argument that the report was to investigate the legality of the policy.

‘To adjourn the proceedings for a further period of time will necessarily impact on the young person in this case.’

WellBN describes itself as ‘an innovative GP surgery serving 25,000 patients in the BN postcode using a holistic approach.’

Mr Justice MacDonaldreserved judgement.