Consent for the continued storage of embryos can be withdrawn by either party at any time up until the time of implantation.

Josephine Quintavalle, on behalf of the Pro-Life pressure group, argued that PGD and tissue typing were prohibited by the 1990 Act. Her claim failed in the House of Lords.

A purposive approach should be taken to interpretation of the 1990 Act. The 2008 Act now permits PGD in certain situations.

A claim was brought against the Government that embryos created by cell nuclear replacement were not regulated by the Human Fertilisation Act 1990.

The House of Lords concluded that embryos created by CNR were subject to regulation. What mattered was not how they were created, but whether it was a live human embryo.

Following negligent NHS treatment, the claimant became infertile. She wanted four children using surrogacy, two with her eggs and two donor eggs from commercial surrogacy in the US.

The Supreme Court held that damages for overseas commercial surrogacy were not contrary to public policy, provided prospects of success were reasonable.

Sperm that had been kept for possible future use was negligently stored and perished. The question for the court to decide was who owned the sperm.

The court determined that the sperm was the property of the men who produced it.