The case, brought before the High Court, challenges the actions of a private health partnership that delivered NHS-funded gender care to under-18s.
The father, known as ATN, claims the Sussex-based Wellbn Partnership prescribed gender hormone treatment to his child, ATT, without parental consent and in breach of national NHS guidance.
WellBN has three surgeries in Brighton, including one in Western Road and offers a Trans Health Hub which “aims to improve access to healthcare and support for trans, non-binary, intersex and gender-variant people aged 16 plus”.
Vikram Sachdeva KC, representing ATN, argued at a hearing on May 13 that Wellbn’s policy of prescribing gender-affirming hormones (GAH) to under-18s was “negligent and unlawful,” and violated its contractual obligations as an NHS service provider.
Mr Sachdeva said: “This prescribing model results in inevitably negligent and unlawful practice.”
The WellBN surgery in Western Road, Hove (Image: The Argus)
He described Wellbn’s approach as involving a baseline blood test, a single 40-minute appointment, and a signed consent form.
He said it was in the public interest for the claim to proceed.
On June 5, 2025 NHS Sussex announced that it “launched a rapid investigation” with NHS England into the practice for “prescribing or arranging the supply of medication for gender dysphoria” for under 18s.
Wellbn ceased prescribing HRT to under-18s in April 2025.
However, the father’s legal team argues the challenge remains relevant because the partnership has not admitted wrongdoing and has described the cessation as a “temporary pause.”
The 2024 Cass Review, led by Baroness Hilary Cass, recommended “extreme caution” in prescribing HRT to under-18s and stated there should be a “clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18.”
In March 2026, the NHS paused gender-affirming hormone treatment for 16 and 17-year-olds after a separate review concluded the evidence did not support continued treatment.
Nicola Newbegin KC, representing Wellbn, argued the claim was “academic” and should be dismissed.
She told the court the partnership had stopped the practice.
Ms Newbegin said: “The defendant is no longer providing the treatment complained of, no longer applying the ‘policy’ complained of, and has no intention of not complying with the instructions of NHS England and/or the Sussex Integrated Care Board.”
She described the claim as “unsustainable” and having a “total lack of merit”.
Ms Newbegin said: “The question of whether and in what circumstances under-18s should be prescribed GAH is subject to ongoing debate, both within the medical profession and more broadly, in which policies and guidance are continually developing.”
She also argued that the issue was “not something the court can, let alone should, seek to resolve.”
The judge, Mr Justice MacDonald, will deliver a written ruling at a later date.
Neither the father nor child have been identified for legal reasons.